but when the entire world watches the crime happen on television there's not much need for it.

Ditto for the Ruby/Oswald event on TV:
"We all saw it on TV" somehow shortcircuited rational thought?!

Many people, to whom I introduce alien thoughts re: 9/11 2001 event ,say to me, "But I was there," as if that in itself is some kind of rational argument! (I would not, at the time, even be talking about the presense (or not) of striking aircraft - just introducing the ideas of demolition and perpetration) This: "But I was there" blocks all further reflection or thought. In cult busting lingo such a phrase is called a "thought stopper."

Not sure why it works that way - to have something right in the open. But I suspect the perps types understood the principle somehow....which is why they shot Kennedy right in the open, in front of hundreds of witnesses, and why Ruby shooting Oswald was on live TV. IMO. This is also known as "hiding something in plain view" which is a technique of flim-flam men for their conjuring/"magician" tricks. I still don't believe I understand the principle completely.

Once you get someone into a good rapport though, if you can, you can lead them, often, to reflection/thought. It's like a muscle they have that's there but never used. It's best to let it drop after they get a first glimmer and let it sit. If you push too much you'll get a "no" and that will set a a decision to further reinforce their habit of mind. IMO.

The ones who get angry IMO have their subconscious reasons for doing so. I, myself, got very angry when first told the fire wasn't hot enough to bring down the building as depicted. I think it was a mental revolt at the effort that would be required to re-think everything. A "natural" or instinctive resistance to change perhaps?

John:

Your interview with Fox News on or about September 10th was very good (given the hostile circumstances & loaded questioning).

In your comment above, you say that Dr. Wood uses only one (1) grainy video to prove her case about beam weapons being used to disintegrate the WTC towers.  If you have read her article, then you know that she uses approximately 150 pcitures & videos, seismic & other evidence from other demolitions, scientific evidence & analysis about other exotic energy sources, etc., to prove her case that some energy source (other than Thermite) was used to DISINTEGRATE most of the steel and most of the concrete in the WTC towers.

Although Thermite may have been used on 9/11, Thermite CANNOT disintegrate most of the steel & most of the concrete in the manner that we saw on 9/11.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite.

I am NOT convinced that Dr. Wood is correct in all that she asserts.  However, she has definitely shown us pictures, videos & other evidence that I had not seen or considered.  Maybe you have seen all these pictures, videos & evidence. I had not.

Her semi-complex scientific article asserting that "beam weapons" were used to disintegrate & bring down the WTC towers on 9/11 is 60+ pages long (but only 6 web pages).  In its current, preliminary form, it is definitely NOT something to show to 9/11 newbies. I agree with you on this point.

However, if we in the 9/11 TRUTH Movement stand for anything, then we should stand for the rights of our 9/11 scientists to find & speak the TRUTH about 9/11 -- whatever it is, and wherever it is (even if we don't like it).  After our 9/11 scientists find & test what they think is the truth about 9/11, they then need to prove it to their scientific peers (who are not well-represented here at 911 Blogger).

Expressing these scientic hypotheses in an understandable form is one of the areas in which we may be able to help Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Judy Wood and our other 9/11 scientists & researchers.

John, if you think that Dr. Wood has EVER talked about mini-nukes being responsible for bringing down the WTC towers (which she has NOT, as far as I know), then you may not understand what she is saying.  But she may need to make herself clear.

In her preliminary article, there is much that is not clear.  Before her scientific peers (or we) can say whether she is wrong or right, maybe we should let her finish her article.

Personally, given what I know about such weapons & given what I've seen of her article so far, I will give her the benefit of the doubt.  After she finishes her article, I will go over it with a scientific fine-toothed comb & point out where she may be mistaken -- with as much scientific help as I can obtain.  I'd suggest that others do the same.

John, if you think that Dr. Wood tries to prove her case about beam weapons with just one (1) grainy video, then you do NOT need to wait until she finishes her article to say that SHE IS WRONG.  Thankfully, however, you did a much better job in telling 9/11 truth when you were on Fox News.

Let me know.  Thank you.  Best regards,

Thomas J Mattingly

John:

On numerous occasions (too many to count), you have expressed your opinion that the 9/11 science, materials testing, and research of Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds is "UNCONVINCING, EMBARRASSING, CARTOON-LIKE, RUBBISH, GARBAGE, [and/or] EMPTY."  By now, most of us know your opinion about Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Wood.  Although I SOMETIMES disagree with you on particular aspects of their work (i.e., some of their work is fairly good), I respect your opinion.

You also continue to express your opinion that Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds are INTENTIONALLY hurting the 9/11 Truth Movement.  After reading their work and after meeting with Morgan & Judy when they recently spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, I respectfully disagree with you about this.  There is NO EVIDENCE (that I could find) that they are intentionally harming the 9/11 Truth Movement by their continued research, speaking & writing in search of 9/11 Truth.

John, what is your EVIDENCE and your PROOF that Dr. Reynolds & Dr. Wood are intentionally hurting the 9/11 Truth Movement?

I realize that "The road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions" and that they might be unintentionally hurting the 9/11 Truth Movement -- whether they know it or not.  However, I have also seen no evidence of that.  Although the mainstream media & others have attacked them for some of their research, my understanding is that the mainstream media have also attacked former Professor Steven E. Jones, Dr. James Fetzer, and even you for some of the things that they & you have said about 9/11.  Imagine that!

Dr. Judy Wood's 9/11 research & writing was also very well received by a jury of her peers at a scientific conference (something that no other 9/11 scientist can say), and Dr. Wood also received a standing ovation (with no boos or catcalls) when she spoke before an audience of several hundred people from the 9/11 Truth Movement in New York City on the 5th Anniversity of 9/11.

What might be even more damaging to the 9/11 Truth Movement would be for us to succumb to some of the deliberate and intentional tactics & strategy of the 9/11 Cover-Up Perps and the 9/11 PsyOp Perps. 

One page from the playbook of the 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps is definitely "Divide and Conquer."  The 9/11 Cover-Up & PsyOp Perps have encouraged us to Bicker & Squabble amongst ourselves, to call each other names, and to question the motivations & sincerity of those researchers with whom we disagree.

John, I do not question your motivations, and I do not question your sincerity.  However, I would also suggest that you consider the possibility that "The road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions."  I am sure that you will probably agree.

Let me know.  Thank you.  Best regards,

Thomas J Mattingly