in the "theory" of gravity either but I dare you to prove it wrong.

To Controlled Demolition to elicit SHOCK AND AWE?

You don't want to hang your hat on CD (your choice), but what's the alternate theory you are keeping in the "list of possibilities"? Does this alternate theory have any supporting evidence? Evidence anything like the list on the right side of http://ae911truth.org ?

I will note that's it _is_ a valid position _not_ to have an alternate theory, but we (scientists) usually wait until we can falsify or cast serious doubt on the proposed theory to take that position.

You seem to be protecting a (very) dead horse just in case he somehow un-rots and comes back to life.

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

Its solid - Physics doesn't lie.

--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

CD is NOT a theory...There's way too much hard, direct, and physical evidence and I think it's safe to say that 99% of serious 9/11 truthers know this already.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Jon, but I would just add a line that says:
- The 9/11 truth movement I belong to UPHOLDS AND DEFENDS THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND DOES NOT DARE INFRINGE UPON ANYONE'S FREE SPEECH, REGARDLESS OF THE TIME AND PLACE. (i.e., during the 9/11 anniversary events in NYC)

Awesome post Justin...That's THE best video I've seen to date on 1WTC coming down....If this can be slowed down even more , the already visible detonator cord flashes will be even more visible...You're absolutely right...The key to making this whole charade collapse is to expose the Controlled Demolitions at the WTC site.
best,
JR

I was sharing simular sentiments when I posted Victronix's Good 9/11 Activist Guidelines:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2216

in the comments at your blog. And you lot were too afraid to respond to them. (Well, Jumbo gave a thumbs up at Chief Brief--but the rest of you are cowards)

So you know very well that Jon isn't alone in demanding standards.

Mind, it helps not to sound pushy--that's why I say "guidelines". Let people have a chance to give it a think, see what they need at the mo.

But more importantly, considering any standards scares the living shite out of both the disinfo and debunker camps: because this threatens to put them both out of work!

Ah, the screams of my enemies in pain brings such a smile...>:-)

______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

It is not up to Jon to declare what those standards shall be. That takes debate. And resolution.
What he implied was that some theories are better than other theories but he did not back up his evaluation. (he appeared to mistakenly assume 'theories' per se were wrongheaded in some way. But he does not understand philosophy of science. So it is right that his interpretation is debated. And the evidence is debated.

=============================================================
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

I have MANY of them.

I also understand that the reason they exist is because those who should answer our questions, REFUSE to do so. It is human nature to question that which we don't understand, and we deal with what we don't understand by theorizing about it, researching about it, etc...

However that does NOT mean that we promote ONLY our theories. We also must promote the information that got A LOT of us here today.

If all we promote is Controlled Demolition, than we are not representing everyone that questions 9/11. If all we promote is Controlled Demolition, than we are only bringing in people that Controlled Demolition would appeal to.

One thing I have learned after all of this time is that those who do question the 9/11 attacks are MANY in number. Another thing I have learned is that not everyone that questions the 9/11 attacks agrees on the "set of questions."

We must, as Jenny said, set a standard. We must be, as I said, strategic.

I've turned on one military intelligence analyst by simply showing him wtc7 footage and letting him seek out the rest. He in turn has turned on another ex-intel analyst. It is his opinion that more people would ask more questions if they simply saw the footage of wtc7. It is my opinion also that people will respond well to it. People can more readily understand stimuli that they are familiar with. Many people have seen other CD's on tv or even at Vegas. Most people don't even look at conspiracy theories which IS what we are dealing with because the f'ing media has been conditioning them to associate "loony, whacko, etc." with that phrase and concept since Kennedy was assassinated. People have been working for years now to turn on others to this massive conspiracy. Most of the bases have been covered as far as the suspected who, what, when, where, how, and why. These are issues that individuals need to learn about on their own. There are PLENTY of resources available for them. The important thing is to keep turning people on and the easiest way to do it is not to dive in head first to discussing all of the issues. Something simple like wtc7 coming down will get the 9/11 truth foot in the door and the rest is cake from there.

Take it from a psychologist (or don't. What do I know about the human mind?).

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN!
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/

Great post.

We need to always keep in mind that no one piece of information will immediately cause a person to switch to accepting the possibility of US involvement. The question is: what is the quickest way to get a person to start looking into it for him/herself, to desire to become immersed in all the facets of the conspiracy? Much of the geo-political and contextual reality is complex, and, for most of the busy and/or dumbed down populace, not immediately compelling.

There is a near 1:1 success ratio for people who have been exposed to videos of WTC7. The success is two-fold; it makes one wonder why the hell the information was uniformly suppressed if its collapse has an innocent explanation (particularly considering the agencies that were housed there), and the nature of the collapse itself is just so damning. "Who are you going to believe -- them or your lying eyes" is the most efficient way to crash cognitive dissonance. Friends of mine who were persuaded to watch Press for Truth said that everything else in the film could be rationalized as covering up for stupidity or inefficiency or looking the other way (things they already attributed to this administration), but the brief view of WTC7 was what made them willing to look further.

It's not going to work for everyone, but it's as good a start as any.

Our message is not crafted for Fox News, and should not be targeted to their audience (which is thankfully dwindling). Similarly, we shouldn't worry about professed and professional debunkers from either side of the political divide. They are going to treat all evidence of complicity in the same manner. They've never copped to any of the evidence presented -- why should their attempts to debunk CD be placed in a special category?

It's just that Jon Gold's movement sounds like an Army of One.

Brainster: Must not agree with guidelines Jenny posts---Jenny Truther--Jenny bad. I must not agree with Truthers that Jon maybe too strict--Must not say Truthers standards can be too high--must not agree with bad Truthers at all costs--must not agree with Jenny Gold--does not compute, does not compute--eeeeerm.

(SYSTEMS FAILURE. YOUR DEBUNKING UNIT HAS SHUT DOWN DUE TO AN INTERNAL UNRESOLVED LOGICAL DICHOTOMY. FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS AT POPULAR MECHANICS 911MYTHS TO REBOOT DEBUNKING UNIT)

______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

"Victoria... I apologize if my statement offended you. I have a tendency to be in the middle of a lot of arguments (some by my doing, and some by others, mostly by others), and as a result, occasionally, I "flip my lid." For all its' good, and yes, 911Blogger.com is a good resource for activism, and 9/11 related news (whether it's news you agree with or not), the commenting can be a detriment. The commenting is also a good resource sometimes, however, more often than not, it's a detriment."

The problem with your post is that you are pontificating.
I would not call that talking strategy, which I agree is very important.

On the otherhand, I appreciate your many contributions.