 |
truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| truebeleaguer wrote: | Stefan, you're not dealing with the issue.
The point is, it doesn't matter how good the evidence for an overflight is.
Even if we presented an airtight case, all the government has to do is present faked plane parts and faked security videos and we look like fools.
All we can do is sputter "Your evidence is faked!" while everybody laughs at us.
It doesn't matter if everything we say is true. In politics, perception rules, not truth. |
I agree in part, but I also think that it's much harder to fake a video than most people think. Better said: it's much easier for experienced videographers to recognize a faked video than most people think. Especially one involving a gigantic aircraft crashing into a building.
I agree with Stefan and others that if "they" had solid video footage of F77 hitting the Pentagon they would have released it by now. I am not convinced that F77 was anywhere near the Pentagon on 911, and I don't think it's fair to lump in Pentagon researchers with "no plane" quacks. There are legitimate anomalies -- each more puzzling than the next -- regarding the Pentagon.
Nevertheless, I also recognize that the Pentagon issue is so saturated with conflicting testimony and disinformation that it is not the best line of attack for 911 truth activists. I respect the people who are working on the issue, but there are so many other obvious problems with the official story that it almost seems counter-productive to focus on such a controversial aspect. As you say, perception rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I agree in part, but I also think that it's much harder to fake a video than most people think. Better said: it's much easier for experienced videographers to recognize a faked video than most people think. |
I'm not sure this is cut and dry -- yes videographers are good but there's no real way to know that their debunking of that is any easier than the elaborate claims of faking lamppost breakage, many small parts of a Boeing debis, engine parts, DNA of many many people, planting fake witnesses (and assuming no real witnesses will say anything differently, for the many miles traversed by AA77 both before and after the impact), etc. That's not so simple.
But the beauty is that it wouldn't have to matter if the videographers could recognize it. In the very same way, it didn't matter that the European and independent news media immediately debunked Colin Powell's fake presentation about WMDs -- literally within 24 hours with people at the sites he made claims about standing there in a bunch of nothing -- because when you are swaying millions of people for a purpose, you just dump a series of authoritative sounding statements onto the MSM and then turn to the next emergency and move on. It doesn't matter that 11.9% of the people saw through it because they are voiceless and powerless.
But this is just speculation. To claim that either you could know they would have released the videos, or that I can know that they will, is only based on our own perceptions and reasoning, but not evidence, because we have none.
And that's the whole problem. When we make a claim about a highly contentious issue that we really are speculating about in terms of much of the evidence, we are walking into the future unarmed.
Not so with demolitions and much of the other info. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Not so with demolitions and much of the other info. |
Yes, I agree with this. That was ultimately the point of my post.
I don't disparage the folks who are uncovering anomalies re: Pentagon -- I think there are legitimate issues there -- but I also think there are far more obvious anomalies that are staring us right in the face. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truebeleaguer
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm just speculating of course, but I think there are some very strong reason that the Pentagon would NOT release the videos showing a plane strike if they had it.
One is to let researchers waste time and energy on no-757 theories, and to disrupt the movement with a lot of debate.
One is to lure Pilots for 9/11 Truth to the flyover theory and divert energy from the remote-control theory.
One is to further the "Because I say so" principle and the "Just trust us" principle that the videos are Pentagon business and thus none of our business, and none of the news media's business, and none of Congress's business. Whassamatter, you don't support our troops?
Speaking of diversions I note that the NYC festivities for September have scheduled Barrett and Aldo Marquis.
http://changeandtransparency.blogspot.com/2009/06/guest-list.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Speaking of diversions I note that the NYC festivities for September have scheduled Barrett and Aldo Marquis. |
Yes, there's discussion here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 358
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will respond soon, am very busy, just letting you know I'm not ignoring this.
Very briefly for now -
Victoria - yes you post those articles every time this topic comes up - I have read them AND CITs responses to them. Have you?
In fact they all rely on the reader not having even seen the source material of CITs research - like all "debunking" relies on the reader being ignorant of what is being "debunked" to have any power at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 358
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK I should be working now, but was distracting myself by wanting to reply -
| Quote: | Stefan, you're not dealing with the issue.
The point is, it doesn't matter how good the evidence for an overflight is.
Even if we presented an airtight case, all the government has to do is present faked plane parts and faked security videos and we look like fools.
All we can do is sputter "Your evidence is faked!" while everybody laughs at us.
It doesn't matter if everything we say is true. In politics, perception rules, not truth. |
Isn't that the rationale of mainstream leftwing activists who rail against 9/11 truth in general? That the truth doesn't matter, saying the government did 9/11 will get us laughed at so we need to come down on it to show we aren't a part of that?
There is as little merit to their argument as yours. If facts support a view it should be argued, and if the facts are correct that argument will win, even if it takes some serious sustained pressure and perserverence to get their, as we all know.
I would also ask people that say this how often they debate 9/11 in general with non-9/11 truth people?
You really think saying that the buildings were demolished by nano-thermite sounds any less ridiculous to them than saying the plane flew over the Pentagon?
People's cognitive dissonance regarding all areas of 9/11 truth is something we have to live with an continue to chip away at with evidence.
If anything, a peer reviewed paper will make most people say "well I'm not a scientist so how can I judge?" and then just wait for another cod scientist to appear and say it's all wrong before accepting the "science" which better suits their pre-existing world view.
With something as simple and self evident as the eye witness testimony that CIT have assembled ANYONE can understand how the official story is wrong. The only people who seem to have a problem with it is those who staked out their own pre-existing view - that the Pentagon was a no go. Just like the main stream left activists they are the ones who don't just ignore it but fight as hard as the government does against it. To people coming to this evidence without a political stance to defend the CIT evidence is now being widely embraced.
It seems we have two very strong areas of research - the nano-thermite paper for experts and people with scientific credentials, and the north of citgo path for those who claim they just can't get the science.
If you think it's simpler or better not to focus on the Pentagon, that is absolutely your choice and no one can tell you to do otherwise. What I am against is the concerted effort to belittle and "debunk" good evidence from within the movement. At this point in time, with the evidence against the south of citgo flight path it is not defensible and needs to be called out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There is as little merit to their argument as yours. |
Gosh. Mayeb that's why so many thoughtful, logical, and committed activists on this forum completely disagree with you. We're committed to fallacy.
_________________
http://911truthburnout.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anaphora
Joined: 27 Dec 2008
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| truthmover wrote: | | Quote: | | There is as little merit to their argument as yours. |
Gosh. Mayeb that's why so many thoughtful, logical, and committed activists on this forum completely disagree with you. We're committed to fallacy.
|
Yep, when all else fails or you can't be bothered to do any more, appeal to "authority" -- in this case, the clique of people who refuse to examine current Pentagon research. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Yep, when all else fails or you can't be bothered to do any more, appeal to "authority" -- in this case, the clique of people who refuse to examine current Pentagon research. |
Whatever. Defend your peers rather than truth. That's sure to change the world. Pentagon "research" is a pure waste of human resources. It will accomplish nothing. I know that time will prove me right no matter how clever a response you can think of.
_________________
http://911truthburnout.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And then back to the topic of this thread. This all sounds like total crap. I don't trust it a bit. Not the videographer or the site at which this was posted.
Bottom line: If those 29 tapes are relevant in any way, why aren't they on YouTube? Period. End of story. What possible excuse could there be for not making them public? He says he will submit them to reliable experts? Crap. Unless he makes them public, I don't even believe his story as not doing so makes him exactly the target he says he is. Not credible.
Maybe I'm missing something?
_________________
http://911truthburnout.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truebeleaguer
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stefan wrote
| Quote: | | Isn't that the rationale of mainstream leftwing activists who rail against 9/11 truth in general? ... saying the government did 9/11 will get us laughed at.... |
Yes it is. I've been working with Peace Movement folks and Impeachment folks and Code Pinkers and Pro-Palestinians and Anti-Torturers and World Can't Wait and among all of those people I find a great deal of 9/11 awareness that they refuse to reveal publicly because they consider it politically unwise and damaging to their credibility.
I have done a lot of street work and discussion with people of opposing viewpoints and a lot of internet debate, and my experience in it leads me to believe that advocating a conclusion such as "Inside Job!" or "The Towers Were Blown Up by NanoThermite!" or "The Plane Flew Over the Pentagon!" or is less persuasive than pointing to the inadequacies of the official investigations. The former approach makes you a conspiracy theorist threatening to the world view of the person you're trying to reach so it raises their resistance. The latter intrigues them with mysteries and injustices and arouses their sense of civic involvement. Nobody can dispute the FACT that 91% of the widows' questions were not answered, and anybody who tries to argue that they don't deserve answers winds up looking like an idiot with something to hide.
I think I'm more effective operating as a moderate, thoughtful, well-informed, reasonable, and concerned fellow-citizen than as a frustrated fanatic obsessing about the fact that the public is ignoring my incontrovertible proof of my way out theory.
I'm not even willing to say the government did 9/11. I'm willing to say they did a coverup, and we need to know what they're hiding, but I don't pretend to know who did 9/11. Privately, I'm inclined to consider the possibility that the towers were blown up through the use of unknown technologies from another planet and that state security actors all over the world and all the Bohemian Clubbers know this. I'm sure that if I pursued that notion I could find some pretty shocking facts that would fuel further research, and when I went public I would soon be contacted by intriguing informants who would tell me what I want to hear and I would soon be lured into the self-discrediting la-la land populated by the Kevin Barretts and James Fetzers of the world.
I'm not going to do that. That's not to say that the extra-terrestrial theory is wrong, but I want to campaign for truth effectively in the objective world. That means trying to get the facts and the questions that belong in the mainstream into the mainstream--and not spending my life trying to divert the mainstream up a tributary and over a mountain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think I'm more effective operating as a moderate, thoughtful, well-informed, reasonable, and concerned fellow-citizen than as a frustrated fanatic obsessing about the fact that the public is ignoring my incontrovertible proof of my way out theory. |
And they suck me back in...
The statement you make above demonstrates some experience with promotion. I too have done a good deal of street action and know how to bridge the gap with skeptical people. That might be critical to understanding why we think that a moderate approach works best. Because we've SEEN in work best.
I wonder if these people have ever done any street action. The thinking and behavior we see here is indicative of people who don't really have much sensitivity to those who aren't on our side. And some of it is just crap, like suggestion that we don't know their side of the argument.
Reminds me of WACNY at ground zero yelling at people who disagree with them that they are stupid and then patting each other on the back for showing how much they cared about the truth. Pitiful.
_________________
http://911truthburnout.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You really think saying that the buildings were demolished by nano-thermite sounds any less ridiculous to them than saying the plane flew over the Pentagon? |
The danger for them is that people WILL look at the nanothermite evidence -- that is out of the bag now and can't be put back in, can't be refuted, so the race is on to try to isolate that information.
Interestingly, the primary means to try to isolate and discredit nanothermite and other demolition evidence is with Pentagon missile and no plane at the Pentagon -- "where'd the passengers go?"
Chip Berlet showed the pairing just the other day on Fresh Air --
| Quote: | | For the made-it-happen people, they think that it actually involved, you know, not a group of Islamic terrorists, but a planting of bombs in the World Trade Center by the U.S. government. And then the U.S. government sent a missile to hit the Pentagon.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105531867 |
It doesn't matter how nanothermite "sounds" because that whole area is moving forward each day, each day that Richard presents to new crowds (it was over 500 in the Northwest just the other day) and each time that Steve, Kevin et al publish another paper, and each day that someone sees the B7 video.
The Pentagon claims will never be a threat because the evidence will never be exposed for a missile, a SkyWarrior, planted bombs or anything else if it is FL77 so they will continue to push those at the public at every opportunity.
The case for demolition increases over time, while the Pentagon case is essentially frozen amidst frantic claims that witnesses saying statements like "this is bigger than me" actually amounts to "flyover", in other words, hand-waving.
What's amazing about the PentaCon claims are that the more you look at them, the more ridiculous they become. People on here claimed that a witness to the flyover was found when a person CIT was interviewing said that when he came out some people were saying that the plane kept going and then others corrected them. That counts as a "witness"?
It's fascinating how all the witnesses who say something CIT disagrees with are examined with a fine tooth comb for their field of view, their employer, how much detail they included, on and on.
But a single heresay from a someone that heard someone else say something in the seconds after the attack then amounts to a full blown witness -- no questions about who that person worked for, where they were when they saw it, etc.
As we know, no one has ever said, "I saw the plane fly over the building and leave -- none of those passengers were killed! Why won't anyone listen to me!"
Fascinating how this amts to "evidence" for anything. Primarily it only works to discredit everything else everyone does on here.
Same for how the claims that witnesses like the cabbie were insiders of the attack which primarily serves to discredit us since no actual evidence exists besides hand-waving about broad statements the cabbie made -- i.e., "we came over the bridge together" adds up to "flyover" -- and anyone on the street will consider that nuts, aside from anyone in a court room. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
