| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
YT
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 4601
Location: California
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| dc911truther wrote: | | I believe we are beyond the need for an empowered criminal investigation. |
Who the fuck is "we"?
Speaking as a person who lost someone that day - you're dead wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nicholas wrote: | .
| Quote: | | But for the demolition of the twin towers all they need to know is that there was molten steel in the basement and that jet fuel can't melt steel. |
This is an example of simplistic "just-so" arguments for demolition that don't actually work.
The government doesn't claim jet fuel can melt steel either (red herring). They say the jet fuel started and spread large fires that then weakened the steel to a collapse point. The molten steel in the basement could have come from the force of the collapse or the long pit fire, since it was seen days and months later (if it was steel). |
Nick,
The points you make in bold are not true.
Now, I'm not interested in having a debate on the merits of controlled demolition, but in a way, you make your own point.
The U.S. government will always hire experts to tell us lies about the steel and why the impossible is indeed possible. So, they will make arguments that are not TRUE, but they will fool the people who have psychological dissonance and do not want to disbelieve the official story.
When it comes to the question of "belief"; beliefs are easily manipulated, especially when it comes to the question of people who do NOT want to BELIEVE that the government BLEW UP the twin towers. There is a psychological resistance to this idea.
For some people that is enough. For others, (for example, the many in the truth movement who aren't buying the paid expert B.S.) it is not enough. The lies will not stand, whether or not they are based on PHYSICAL evidence claims or otherwise.
It is every bit as demonstrable that the NIST reports are a cover-up as the 911 report. As MUCH as the 9/11 commission report. By the way, this does not require physical evidence arguments to prove that they have distorted and ignored evidence. That they have in fact, lied.
When NIST tells us that there is no surviving steel from BUILDING 7, and that it has not been analyzed, this is an example of a LIE. This is not a physical evidence argument. This is a cover-up. There are many examples.
Having said all this, I support the idea that we should NOT exclusively focus on physical evidence arguments. That's all I have to say on this.
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dc911truther
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| YT wrote: | | dc911truther wrote: | | I believe we are beyond the need for an empowered criminal investigation. |
Who the fuck is "we"?
Speaking as a person who lost someone that day - you're dead wrong. |
What I am saying is that we need more than an empowered investigation. I believe that such an investigation is neither possible nor would it have any potential to affect change given the current state of the collective psyche. I'm not saying it is not something to be desired. I am saying we need far more than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dc911truther
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jon Gold wrote: | | If "we are beyond the need for an empowered criminal investigation," then how do you expect to hold anyone accountable? How exactly do you propose we find out what exactly happened that day? Without accountability, then the criminality will continue. |
In part, we have the power to establish a great deal without relying on official law enforcement. I have seen far too much evidence of systemic corruption of a nature which would thwart any formal effort to get to the bottom of what happened.
One of the greatest barriers to progress is the Pavlovian programming ingrained in the body politic. People are conditioned to reject ideas which point to understanding of what is actually taking place.
Before an effective investigation and prosecution can take place, the authorities who would conduct such a program must have the solid support of the people. In turn, the people need a reliable medium through which to communicate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The threads where physical evidence and non physical evidence butt heads are the hardest, for sure . . . let's try to either do our best to support both sides if we can, or just support our own position without trying to negate the other side.
I think we all have worse things to deal with, like the serious dis/mis info, the egos and debunkers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 592
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dc911truther wrote: | | In part, we have the power to establish a great deal without relying on official law enforcement. I have seen far too much evidence of systemic corruption of a nature which would thwart any formal effort to get to the bottom of what happened. |
But plenty of past government misconduct has gotten exposed, including outright treasonous stuff like the Iran-Contra affair (secretly selling arms to a country that had held our embassy personnel hostage???!). I see no reason to be hopeless about this.
_________________
Diane
New York City Activist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jon Gold
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 1102
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Didn't the JFK assassination have two inquiries in the 70s? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 358
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nafeez Ahmed made a very good point regarding the call for a 7/7 inquiry - it isn't that we think an inquiry would ever happen, or that we think it is at all realistic to think it would be fair, unbaised or conclusive if it did - we do so for two reasons:
1) The victims and their families deserve it and that should not be forgotten
2) By making this a campaigning point we both have a focus and we draw attenion to the lack of one, or in the case of 9/11 a lack of one which did anything to explain even a percentage of the questions and evidence available and never considered anything more than a single hypothesis.
So I can agree with dctruther's sentiment - an investigation should not be realistically expected or seen as the be all and end all - but not that we stop calling for one, because it is the right thing to do, and it makes sense from a PR point of view as well.
It's strategically and morally right to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnA
Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 949
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arabesque wrote: | The U.S. government will always hire experts to tell us lies about the steel and why the impossible is indeed possible. So, they will make arguments that are not TRUE, but they will fool the people who have psychological dissonance and do not want to disbelieve the official story.
|
yes - i agree - which is why physical evidence will always be an endless debate.
shit - people are still debating evolution!! LOL!!  you expect CD to get us anywhere?
no - at best it ENHANCES our position - based on the factual-based research - and strengthens it.
but - i also have to caution you to not assume or accuse any professional expert that comes along and disagrees with the CD hypothesis as simply a paid government official. we see these types of accusations in the 'less credible' alternative 9/11 Truth movement that forwards absurdist theories - and then labels opponents as government shills.
so... it was PROVEN that it was molten steel in the basement? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dc911truther
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Diane wrote: | | dc911truther wrote: | | In part, we have the power to establish a great deal without relying on official law enforcement. I have seen far too much evidence of systemic corruption of a nature which would thwart any formal effort to get to the bottom of what happened. |
But plenty of past government misconduct has gotten exposed, including outright treasonous stuff like the Iran-Contra affair (secretly selling arms to a country that had held our embassy personnel hostage???!). I see no reason to be hopeless about this. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
| Quote: | A limited hangout is a form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality by withholding key facts is protecting a deeper crime and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.
A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.
Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."[1] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnA
Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 949
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what is the alternative to seeking legal justice?
seeking vigilante justice?
you are on the wrong forum for that.
just because people have failed in the past - and limited hangouts have muddied the waters - and criminals like OJ walk free - does not mean that we give up on the dream of a people empowerment - and justice.
if you can provide us with an alternative - i would like to hear it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dc911truther
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JohnA wrote: | what is the alternative to seeking legal justice?
seeking vigilante justice?
you are on the wrong forum for that.
just because people have failed in the past - and limited hangouts have muddied the waters - and criminals like OJ walk free - does not mean that we give up on the dream of a people empowerment - and justice.
if you can provide us with an alternative - i would like to hear it. |
The problem is that people within the 9/11 Truth movement actively thwart efforts to do what I believe needs doing. Even to explicitly state what I believe is forbidden. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YT
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 4601
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: Re: Who's telling the truth and who's spreading disinformati |
|
|
| dc911truther wrote: | | Unfortunately I cannot refer to my own materials |
Why not?
Either spell it out right now or quit referring to it.
This comes off as trolling and I'm sick of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dc911truther
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: Re: Who's telling the truth and who's spreading disinformati |
|
|
| YT wrote: | | dc911truther wrote: | | Unfortunately I cannot refer to my own materials |
Why not?
Either spell it out right now or quit referring to it.
This comes off as trolling and I'm sick of it. |
Ask Matt from dc911truth for the video of the 70 minute presentation I gave on 10/11/08. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
borisb85
Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: 9/11 Timeline? |
|
|
Any website that promotes the theory that a 757 hit the Pentagon is complete disinformation, end of story. For people new to 9/11 truth, common sense should guide you through the myriad of information and sites. Since there is literally no evidence that any hijackers were on the flights, anyone new to this should take that as a starting point as well.
The bottom line is if you think that it's even remotely possible that 19 hijackers infiltrated a trillion dollar air defense system over the two most important city's on the planet for close to 2 hours with no military response, then there is no hope for you. Just move on and get ready to enjoy your REAL ID CARD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
