Again, 9/11 Mysteries to the rescue. The bathtub was indeed damaged--it was necessary to go in after the fact and reinforce it becuase it was beginning to cave inwards from the pressure of the water it was holding back. This is all covered in the 9/11 Mysteries documentary. After the collapses, complete with the explosions that destroyed the underground (in the bathtub) parking areas, the debris piled up in the bathtub instead of spilling over into the neighboring streets. That debris contained tons and tons of steel, so what the hell are they talking about that the steel was destroyed before hitting the bathtub? That's exactly where it all fell into.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Summary of this disinfo theory can be found here.

Mr. Abrahamson couldn't have done a better job to validate the work of Wood and Reynolds on the Beam Weapon.
Why else does it terrify him?

It obviously exists.

'Virtually all of the concrete was turned into very fine dust'

David Ray Griffin, The 911 Commission report: omissions and distortions, p. 26

'One of the major problems wih the official account is why, even if the fire could have somehow caused the floors of the building to ''pancake''...the resulting pile of rubble was only a few stories high.

IBID, p.27

Yes, the concrete and building contents were pulverized. In addition to being a mystery, it's also the reason 15,000 people are sick. It's a very bad thing. There are other much more prosaic hypothetical explanations than space beams, however -- why not advanced conventional explosives? Why even bother to look at an idea like space beams when there's no reason to think it wasn't explosives? I just don't get it, Andrew.

I hope when the community-moderation system is fully rolled out, we'll be able to collectively front-page things.

I would hope the front page moderation stays firmly in control of the blogger admins. Democracy is mob rule, and in a system that is easily exploitable, this would lead to disinfo littering the front page.

but don't get me wrong, my statement has nothing to do with stallion4's blog post.  I personally gave it a 10 when it was first posted. 

something along these lines is what dz intends. Approving all the blogs sounds like a major pain in the ass for the moderators.

Why do you think disinfo would be frontpaged? The people I consider disinfo bloggers and posters are consistently rated low and their posts voted down.

What don't you get, Casseia? Andrew Johnson , colleague of mine from nineeleven.co.uk for whom I have a lot of time and who works tirelessly promoting 911Truth in his spare time, has put forward a list of reasons why laser weapons should be considered among the possible options. That's all I have been saying. It's you who wants to close down debate, not us. It's you who says smugly, " I know what disinfo is'', not us.

I wouldn't dream of accusing anyone here of working for the other side - that is stupid and damaging talk. But there is something very strange going on when a so-called truthseekers forum gets dominated by those who seem to glory in safety and 'acceptability' rather than to want to shine the searchlight of investigation into the murky depths of secrecy surrounding 9/11.

How many of those who have voted my posts down have actually looked at the many links I have referenced? Why are you all so afraid of finding out that the military have been secretly using highly developed weapons of which we know next to nothing? Are you trying to protect them , or what? That is what it looks like to outsiders.

How arrogantt and ignorant of Abrahamson.
Just because he happens to know so little about recent developments in laser, particle-beam and microwave weapons technology..
and is to frigging lazyt to do his homework ...

He belittles the research and findings of superior intellects,

Do you damn homework, Abrahamson ...
before you stop up your ears, put on your blindfold and close your puerile little mind.,

Just for starters .....
take a look at the "Calder Statue" from the front of WTC7
Before versus after.
That's a good place to start doing the reading you should have doing all along,....

Guess you think Kucinitch was a tin-foil hatter for doing an entire spech on the floor of the House, demanding oversight and control of scalar weapons and "weatther" weapons ?

Or maybe you think the establishment of a"Weather Modification" oversight committte in the US Senate (by Kay Bailey ..blah blah) is also just diversionary tin-foil hattery ?

That's ok Abrahamson.
We really appreciate your taking on the role of self-appointed censor, when it comes to fairly examining evidence of black weapons use on 9/11.
Otherwise, how could the discussion be effectively contained ?

And once people get used to a controlled and properly regulated discussion, that prudently excludes and excises this information, we can all get back to "mainstreaming 9/11" ...

Which is to say ,. co-opting, shoe-horning, and otherwise mangling an allowable "9/11 truth" into acceptable shape,t to suit the ignorance and prejudice and anti-intellectuallism already promoted by the corporate media and academia......
on the great unwashed who presumably are "not ready" to handle such difficult material.

How condescendingly protective of you, Dan.

And, some people here do not play by the rules.

I have seen many a balanced discussion descend into chaos because someone dared to challenge a popular belief.

Using a popularity meter to bump blogs to the front page would only help to reinforce the POPULAR ideas, while discouraging people to engage in critical thinking and consider opposing ideas.

But opposing ideas are very important. There was a period where the "pod" idea and the "flash" idea was very popular.

Under this system they would be bumped up, and reinforced, while critical analysis would be discouraged and dwindle away.

all it takes is 2-3 individuals with 10 bogus accounts and you have 30 votes.

Yes.
That's really all it's about.
It's not about this or that or another specific topic or hypothesis.
It's not about "planes vs. no-lanes" or "no-Boeings", or thermate versus

It's about the social habits of insittutions adapting to a more structured and "responsibly" regulated framework of discussion; getting people used to the idea of what's allowed

Just think, for a second, about how rhetorical constructs (become memes) like "conspiracy theorist" or "tinf-foil hat" ... have come about in the first place as a very effective means of establishing "rational" limits on the range of respectable discussion with regard to subjects like the key political assassinations of the 60s, or the popular patriotic culture surrounding NASA is used as cover for classified billioin-dollar projets in space weaponry.

Instructive to review, historically, the methods employed in the media and academia to ensure that discussion is first contained, then channeled, side-tracked and ultimately marginalized completely.

I am baffled that DLA thinks it prudent (for the good of the movement) to marginalize Judy Wood or Morgan Reynolds;
simultaneously having no problem with some of the admittedly globalistt "New Age" theological affectations and affiliations of David Ray Griffin;

Or the reactions I have encountered among secular "Blue State" liberal Democrats in my locale, when they discover that candidate Bowman founded a new wing of the Catholic Church,

Or (Mormon) Steve Jones (the Mormons were regarded as marginal quacks and charlatans and cultists, through much f the 19th century) of whom the media never failed to credit for his research on the travels of Jesus in pre-Columbian America.

Marginalization ?
Credibility ?
Public image ?
Allowable parameters of discussion ?

I hate to get down'n-dirty here, but Abrahamson opened the door to this, lugging in some baggage of inconsistency with him.
He appears to harbor a double-standard.
Why does he take the time and energy to single-out THESE specific individuals and issues, as leading to potential marginalization of "the movement"; while studiously ignoring the liabilities associated with some of his movement "heroes".

Dan would undoubtedly argue that we have to ssparate the "personal" from the "political".
That the beliefs, religious affiliations or openly admitted global political agendas proclaimed by "movement" heroes mean nothing, because they are "personal" and irrelevant to the political "success" of "9/11 truth"
This double standard has a kind of "cultic" quality to it.
In the sense that thinking habits and social practices of "personality cults"
will trump and prevail over the grueling, much more difficult labor of restoring one's capacity for independent critical judgment
Easier to follow leaders whom "we can trust", than do the work of educating and figuring it out for ourselves.
Dangerous habit to get into, I think.
It leads me to wonder if there might be more than meets the eye...
to this apparently random choice of annointed leaders versus marginaized dissidents.... ?

Is there an agenda here to bind the movement up with a kind of doublethink ?

These guys "good" ..
Those guys "bad"...
Never mind the details...
... just too complicated....
Look ... we have someone you can trust ...
Who can tell you just what to think..
Or at least what to say.
So you won't alienate anyone with your "truth".

Space beams, holograms, all that stuff is just silly. And if you come back with - well no plane at the pentagon is silly, then youll be wrong again. part of the disinfo plaguing this movement is this idea that we can't be sure of anything, so we should allow anything and everything to pass as credible research.

Nonsense! It's just muddying the waters. If you can't tell the difference between serious research, EVEN if it is done by someone with religious inclinations you find wacky, then you have no business participating in this type of inquiry. People's work stands on its own merits, not on their background. That's why it makes no difference whether or not Steve Jones is CIA, Los ALamos, or whatever. His work makes sense. Space Beams do not. TV fakery in the case of the WTC does not either.

People are free to discuss whatever they want, but don't complain that it is unfair when bogus ideas are ridiculed. That's what happens to bogus ideas. The fact that shills try to ridicule the legitimate issues raised by the truth movement does not obligate truthers to be sympathetic to things that get properly and fairly ridiculed for being, well, ridiculous.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

You consider Pakistan research bogus. You accuse people of being shills because they do not agree with you. You insult people and engage in flame wars that upset people and chase away quality people.

When you say that bogus ideas are ridiculed I wonder where YOU draw the line?

Not everyone who disagrees with you is part of an intentional disinformation campaign.

Your judgment has been questionable. No one questions your dedication, but you appear to be a self-appointed moderator who has shown very poor judgment in the past. You flame out at people you disagree with.

I agree entirely Real Truther. We should attack the issues not the person, unless we KNOW beyond any doubt they are an infiltrator. Saying "I hear you're CIA'' to another poster is not very sensible, frankly.

re: How to "tell the difference between serious research ...."
and .... ?

=====================
"........If you can't tell the difference between serious research, EVEN if it is done by someone with religious inclinations you find wacky, then you have no business participating in this type of inquiry. People's work stands on its own merits, not on their background. That's why it makes no difference whether or not Steve Jones is CIA, Los ALamos, or whatever. His work makes sense. Space Beams do not. TV fakery in the case of the WTC does not either......."
--- Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
at http://www.911blogger.com/node/4547
====================================================

(But first..., let's ignore the hard evidence of transparent fakery by the media networks)
http://www.911hoax.com/default_Main_page.asp
http://thewebfairy.com/911/
http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/index.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/911/insane/index.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3RYv7xnnlU

Beam Weapons from the Star Wars Program and "no planes" at any of the 4 alleged sites. Touchdown! Thanks for the validation that we're on the right track.

Hey, if you really did think we were crazy, you wouldn't waste your time on us. Thanks, again, for the validation.