The truck bomb story may be true. But is also may be bogus scary information floated during a time of crisis to scare the bejesus out of us.

Either way, it is evidence that benefits the search for 9/11 Truth.

It is very important to place this dynamic in the forefront of our minds. The Official Narrative is [same as damn near] impossible for its remaining adherents to alter going forward. They have extensively documented a position they must take to their demise which can not be danced around with fluid semantics nor evoke "special sensitive secret evidence" needed to maintain "security".

Any such 'prior secrets only now releasable' are immediately challengeable on the bases of balance for the insecurity such a "secret" has caused by inciting "rampant conspirsism" INTO a deep loss of domestic tranquility. With every subsequent change or update in Official Narrative, simply repeat the charge of too little too late for the ongoing loss of tranquility which thus FORMED insecurity.

Let them hang by their words, or hang faster by any change in their words.

All we have to do is maintain a low simmer, and let their own bad broth baste them down to an unpalatable rock.

e

If this were an official trial, say:
1. Impeachment in front of Senate;
2. Public trial in front of Supreme Court, The Hague, etc,
3. even a regular Grand Jury,
your logic would apply.
Unfortunately, this is still the court of public opinion, where the rules of evidence differ for varying parts of the "jury". If I understand the objection to this clip, its that this is somehow being leaked as another layer in a cover story. If so, it would be a good idea to break down the problem as quickly and publically (here) as possible, so that it can be vetted.

If I understand this correctly, there are probably two main areas to cover:
What are the immediate circumstances under which this clip came to light within the "community"; and
When the clip did come to light, what are/were the larger circumstances (political demographics of the 911 cover story vs the 911 truth movement, and relative success of the neo-con project in the eyes of its own constituencies necessary to its continuance in power)?

IMMEDIATE CIRCUMSTANCES
I don't know how this came to light, so it might not be a bad idea to be as explicit as circumstances allow. If multiple people, unrelated, can demonstrate they have had this clip straight off the tube since the original airing, (and I'm not up on exactly how any of that would work) that would probably be a big help in demonstrating the veracity of it issuance (though whether or not it demonstrates unvarnished truth vs planting of another layer of cover story early on would still remain to be seen).

This does bring up a question I've had in the back of my head for some time. Please pardon my ignorance, but of all the various pieces of evidence that have been brought up (the "150 questions about 9/11, this clip, the BBC/WTC7 clips), how many of them have had a "chain of custody" established that would stand up to scrutiny in a formal trial, impeachment, etc.? If this hasn't been done to date, what would it take to at least lay that groundwork? The work on physical evidence by Steven Jones, et al may be sufficient for scientific work, but may not be sufficient in some ways for legal presentation. Similiar points might be made for various types of documentary evidence: official documents, video from news, web-published news stories, eye-witness reports (this, especially in light of eye-witness reports from first-responders now with fatal illnesses from inhaling dust, should be a major point: now is the time to get legally defensible video and written depositions of their testimony, while they are alive. What are the legal requirements for such depositions to stand up in court in the relevant jurisdictions? If eye-witnesses are willing to do these now, how can the depositions be stored/ distributed sufficiently to insure their continued availability, while not endangering the eye-witnesses situation in the meantime in regards to access to medical help, pensions, etc.?)

LARGER CIRCUMSTANCES: "POLITICAL DEMOGRAPHY"
The main point I see here is that about five percent of the USA (current 911=MIHOP, if Zogby's fall 2007 poll is reliable) doesn't need further convincing, while 20-30 never will be convinced (comparable fractions of Russians still think Stalin was "Uncle Joe").... so the real battle for hearts and minds concerns the group in the middle. In political terms, legally admissable evidence will get you so far, then we enter the realm of political psychology -- that's why they call it "psychological operations," after all. Really exploring psycholgical dynamics goes beyond both my current time available and intention for this posting, but suffice to say that cover stories, if that's what this is, aren't out of bounds. "All's fair in psy-ops war, as long as it works", more or less.

LARGER CIRCUMSTANCES: NEO-CONS AND THEIR REAL CONSTITUENCIES
The main point here is that the neo-cons never have and never will work for the Republic or Democracy of the American people. They are employed by principle investors within the American Empire, if you will. No matter what the poltical dynamics of the impeachment movements or 911-truth-outing movements, they will not rise or fall based upon legal principles alone. Their current unpopularity, unfortunately, hasn't risen or fallen based upon the discovery of their adherence to legal, democratic or republican principles. It has depended upon their success or failure in the Iraq campaign, in other words, their success as imperial managers.
In political terms, what we're discussing might be seen as a republican and democratic restoration, but an imperial coup. The unofficial nature of our empire doesn't make the seriousness of the endeavor any less daunting. A great deal of our success at the political level will probably rely upon sufficient fractions of local and state elites becoming convinced that the neo-cons and their backers are not only incompetent in this curent set of ventures, and therefore undeserving of their support on covering for 911, but that they are bankrupt in their fundamentals -- in other words, it is precisely their intellectual disrespect for republican and democratic principles and procedures in general, and their subsequent operational disregard for republican and democratic procedures in governance, that have caused, and will continue to cause, their programs and policies at the imperial-entreprenurial level, as well as their workaday management of domestic and foreign affairs to fall apart at every turn.
(Sorry for the run-on sentence, I need to edit and re-submit later with further attention).

This assertion in my last paragraph may be beyond the scope of the current 911-truth movement, but it may be the real point that will turn the tide in practical political terms. It may also need "translation", if you will, to the circumstances of comparable local and regional elites, and democratic and republican constituencies, outside the US, but still within NATO, ANZUS-UK, Israel, etc, in light of covert/ false-flage operations in their own territories -- prima facie evidence that this isn't just a US problem, but an international, mainly Western but increasingly global, problem and project.

> An official statement that the terrorist
> used bombs to bring down the towers.

This, I am predicting, can NEVER happen. Reason being simply as I said above: they cannot now hang NIST out to dry. Not that anybody cares about NIST per se, but NIST represents SCIENCE, remember? And Science = Truth. That's why they can't even back off to saying "National security concerns in the immediate aftermath of the event precluded our making any public statment blabitty blah blah". If they hadn't let NIST go all SCIENTIFIC, they would have preserved this escape wormhole. But it's now shut forever. Any other admission would be the linchpin that instantly took down all the rest of the NIST pseudo-science, and from there, it would unravel out to the Commission Report, and with 20 seconds, their entire Boxcutter story would have unzipped itself into a cloud of toxic fumes. So, the above new admission or anything like it, will NEVER happen.

>All we have to do is maintain a low simmer,
>and let their own bad broth baste them down
>to an unpalatable rock.

However, in my opinion, the self-basting outcome described above, with the implication that eventual exposure and justice will ensue in due courrse, will also never happen. They tried some active-mode rebuttal/debunking stuff through unofficial channels such as Popular Mechanics. Now that's stalled out due to Grifin and others, they will (have already begun) to retreat to standard mode, which is simply silence and polite or curt dismissal. This will be the mode going forward from here. They'll treat 9-11 outrage and inquiries same as they treat any kind of crazy stuff coming out of any perceived nutty interest group. Just plain silence is always the best medicine.

http://cattanga.typepad.com/tabby_cat_gamespace/2007/09/illustrated-198....

Basting them in their own broth is more just my wishful thinking. I've been utterly astounded by what people will consume when lovingly feed to them by the trustworthy hand of Big Bro. As for us "Kooky TinHatters", polite silence and non-response responses as curt dismissal DO work very well, even as They stand atop a pile of kindling.

Hitching my pony to WTC7, air-defense apparently stood-down, destruction of evidence, obfuscation of forensics and injecting a long delayed investigation with overloads of poised material... might be proof enough for ME that something stinks here at home... but too many of my friends and family still refuse to consider such a specter of treason. For them, 'IT MUST be the Far-off Swarthy Freedom Haters, no other possibilities need even be considered.'

ugh !!

This video is not an official admission, it is TV footage from the day of 9/11, of Jack Kelley claiming his sources at the FBI have a working theory that car bombs were used. The video has been circulating around the Web for years. Jack Kelley was exposed as having made up his stories for many years and is one of the most famous journalistic fraud cases of recent times. In this case, it's likely he is reporting accurately on the FBI's "working theory" an hour or two after the collapses. So what? It proves nothing (since the FBI obviously dropped this "working theory" soon thereafter) and probably means nothing. (It may have been a canned story prepared to make excuses for a demolition that he was asked to spread, but that's strictly speculative.) It would be interesting if it could be determined who Kelley's sources were and what they say today.

---
"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."
summeroftruth.org

such as this comment by Bush on September 15, 2006:

“For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high – a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.”

Yes its Mini-Nuke Disinfo, but with a twist - someone is actually trying to profit from it by selling a 'Report' for 11$ via paypal.
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

I figured as much but I just thought I would throw it out there. There is still so much about 9/11 that we don't know. In my search for truth I try to leave no stone un-turned.