It should come in the mail in several days. I'll post thoughts on it when I read it. Order it here:
I have to say that this thread on Blogger is about the hundredth reason that I do not have the energy to be involved with the 9/11 Truth movement in any capacity anymore. Even Reprehensor is on board with the idea that Ruppert is an agent because he denigrates those who want to focus on CD. Why can't people recognize the difference between character flaws and an agent?
Why can't people recognize the difference between character flaws and an agent?
I think there are a lot of reasons people believe he may be, including he himself admitting that the CIA tried to recruit him and that his mother worked for the NSA. It's not hard to imagine, given that.
But at the same time, there's also no actual evidence that he is, so suggesting it will go nowhere except to cast doubt on him by those who are open to that.
Typically it seems that "character flaws" or "agent" are not that different in terms of the outcome, as in this case, so in the end, it doesn't matter anyway. The point, the behavior, is to try to distract people or turn them away from strong evidence of demolition, although the purpose is an unknown.
I have to say that this thread on Blogger is about the hundredth reason that I do not have the energy to be involved with the 9/11 Truth movement in any capacity anymore. Even Reprehensor is on board with the idea that Ruppert is an agent because he denigrates those who want to focus on CD.
I know the feeling.
The point, the behavior, is to try to distract people or turn them away from strong evidence of demolition, although the purpose is an unknown.
I think Ruppert is very clear in his reasons for this, the open question is whether or not your side with his argument/point of view. Briefly summarized his argument is that the MSM and the "parading experts" phenomenon has continued to muddy the waters in the mind of the public who simply don't have the time to research the facts of 9/11 when it comes to physical evidence.
You only have to watch the latest BBC hit piece to see that we're going to get nothing but this approach to the physical evidence side of 9/11 truth.
Ruppert's approach in contrast is to emphasize contradictory statements by government officials. I in fact use this approach (and learned from him) in tackling the issue of disinformation in the 9/11 truth movement. By framing the debate around individuals who discredit themselves instead of areas open to spin/debate/etc. there is a certain advantage to this approach.
Crossing the Rubicon was a minority effort of the "truth" movement since it encapsulated original investigation that is based on verifiable methods, not merely echoing stuff on questionable websites.
It was fascinating to see the "snitch jacketing" directed against Ruppert when Rubicon was published, and the efforts to keep those interested in Peak Oil and 9/11 from working together.
The media, mainstream and "alternative," know what claims to focus on to discredit 9/11 "truth" and what claims have to be ignored. That is why they loved to make 9/11 "truth" dependent on demolition but not warnings, wargames, means-motive-opportunity, the Complete 9/11 Timeline, Crossing the Rubicon, Nafeez Ahmed's work, etc.
Sorry to be a heretic from the "demolition" claims, but it is not a surprise that the focus on this allegation played out the way that it did.
There is a reason the new supertall skyscrapers (Taiwan 101, Burj Dubai) use reinforced concrete and not merely steel shells without any structural concrete (like the WTC towers).
Now we see the real controlled demolition of Wall Street (the financial collapse) and the "truth" movement is a shell of what it could have been if it had focused on issues that would have put the perpetrators on the defensive.
Even if I'm wrong and there was explosive demolition, that wouldn't change the story of why the Empire allowed and assisted the attacks.
Arabesque said:
I think Ruppert is very clear in his reasons for this, the open question is whether or not your side with his argument/point of view. Briefly summarized his argument is that the MSM and the "parading experts" phenomenon has continued to muddy the waters in the mind of the public who simply don't have the time to research the facts of 9/11 when it comes to physical evidence.
You only have to watch the latest BBC hit piece to see that we're going to get nothing but this approach to the physical evidence side of 9/11 truth.
Ruppert is clear about it and he has been consistent about it too. I think that the collapse of the towers is roughly equivalent to the ballistics in Dealey Plaza, but not even as necessary or as complicated. He makes this comparison in his first video. For JFK, we have to show reasonable doubt of the official version, where as in the collapse, we can pull apart NIST, but to build something else up is far more complex. It puts the burden on us.
Physical evidence, from what I have witnessed, does not lend itself to popular movements well. Most of the movement is clearly not qualified to discuss these issues and the debates I normally see on the street are reduced to one person seeing it and one person not. It just wastes our energy.
Mark said:
Now we see the real controlled demolition of Wall Street (the financial collapse) and the "truth" movement is a shell of what it could have been if it had focused on issues that would have put the perpetrators on the defensive.
I agree. I think Ruppert and Ahmed want to look at bigger and more pressing issues. The last lecture I listened to by Nafeez did not even mention 9/11 if I remember correctly. I think that given the nature of our current economic and environmental situations, the WTC collapse is a relatively small issue. Given the nature of our current legal system and how investigations can be thwarted and manipulated (see HSCA), the use for even qualified discussions of the WTC Collapse is academic only at this point. To focus on it, especially as a major issue, is a distraction to the real 800 pound gorillas in the room.
I think people are put off by how dramatic and, at times, belligerent Ruppert can be. I certainly do not agree with how he handled himself in many instances and every fact may not have been perfect, but I think if you look at articles in FTW from 2004-2005, his overall picture of what the world has come to be has been correct.
well.. i don't like Ruppert on a personal level. The last time i met him (i think it was at the Symphony Space in Manhattan) he was arrogant and somewhat rude to the very people who actually volunteered and invested time and money to make that event a success. and he also propositioned my wife. LOL!!
but - putting that aside - Victrionix - i want you to know that i support and appreciate the work you and Jim Hoffman have done on the subject of CD. I think it is certainly a very important subject that has a very important place in the 9/11 Truth movement. I 100% support the idea of a full investigation into the CD theory - with continued research and debate and activism around that subject.
having said that - i think that we all have to learn to distinguish between advocacy of continued research - and advocacy of CD as the primary focus of 9/11 Truth.
for a very long time this has been one of the most divisive issues in the movement. There are those who seek to intimidate or call into question the loyalty of anyone who does NOT seek to put CD ahead of all of the other facts associated with 9/11. Hell - i was DRIVEN off of 911Blogger on this very same issue by activists like "RealTruther" who called Jon Gold and myself 'agents' for Larry Silverstein.
This recent debate on Ruppert seems like a continuation of this very same unfortunate approach to CD. In fact - isn't 911Blogger basically proving his point by accusing him of being an agent?
Doesn't it basically prove his point that there is near zero tolerance in the movement for alternative modes of activism that do NOT soley depend on 'physical evidence?'
Ruppert is not challenging the theory itself. He is challenging the primacy of the theory in this movement which - in many cases - overshadows and obscures issues that many activists feel are legally ACTIONABLE issues. Willie Brown could very EASILY be issued a subpoena to tell us, under oath, who warned him not to fly on September 10th. I could easily list DOZENS of similar ACTIONABLE issues.
The fact that 911Blogger is allowing this Ruppert's rather rational pragmatic point of view to descend into accusations of "AGENT" demonstrates quite vividly WHY Ruppert has a very legitimate point. No one is challenging the legitimacy of CD. Let the research and activism on that issue continue. But - as Nicholas Levis said in his last radio interview - by allowing it to MONOPOLIZE the process of educating the public on 9/11 you are essentially helping with the coverup.
i support and appreciate the work you and Jim Hoffman have done on the subject of CD. I think it is certainly a very important subject that has a very important place in the 9/11 Truth movement. I 100% support the idea of a full investigation into the CD theory - with continued research and debate and activism around that subject.
Thanks John.
having said that - i think that we all have to learn to distinguish between advocacy of continued research - and advocacy of CD as the primary focus of 9/11 Truth.
The only real way to make anything a primary focus is to do the work to make it that.
A chemist in Denmark has put his life's career, 30 years, on the line for the science he is seeing in the microscope on this issue. He made that choice because he understood what he saw. Now a person at his university has resigned from Bentham's editorial board, an editor at Bentham has just quit. But none of these people are saying the science is wrong. The Bentham editor who quit openly said that the paper was about politics and so shouldn't have been in their journal. And JREFers had been in contact with her before she quit.
There's a reason JREFers are hounding everyone associated with the journal, because the paper is important and they cannot refute it. They must take the journal down if they possibly can, because the science is irrefutable.
Everyone does what they are doing because of what touches them most strongly. If we could control things by saying "don't monopolize" then okay, but in reality, you have to create a better and more exciting reason for people to turn away from scientific truth if you really want them to do that, if the street discussions are difficult. I'm not sure we have a large enough pool of historical incidents to determine whether science is not able to be used in social movements.
My feeling is that most people on here, while appreciating and supporting demolition, don't feel comfortable with it in their gut, which is fine and normal. But what that says is that you have to focus on what DOES feel good, and not focus on trying to redirect the movement. I do see a lot of stuff on here that people here really do care about -- that's great. Everyone works best with what excites them. People who are interested in demolition won't NOT be interested in Ruppert's book because they are interested in demolition. Demo or no demo, people are interested in what they are from a life time of experience and because of how compelling the thing is across the board.
If Mike's book is good, it will sell. He's a good writer, so he will probably do fine, and the topic is important.
all good points
For those of you who are not familiar with Ruppert's actual position on physical evidence, I recommend this article:
The Kennedys, Physical Evidence, and 9/11 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_k...
I do not accept the government's version of the collapses of the towers and WTC 7, and I believe that those collapses were caused by artificial means other than the aircraft collisions. ...
There is a reason why I opened my video The Truth and Lies of 9/11 with a single segment from the Zapruder film, shot on November 22, 1963. It shows that with the fatal head shot, JFK's body was pushed backwards and not forwards. In the simplest laws of physics this means one thing and one thing only; the shot was fired from JFK's front and hence, not by Oswald. The media conditioning - the "Mighty Wurlitzer" described by the CIA's legendary Frank Wisner - has done its job again. Anything that simple couldn't be true. ...
The key is the experts and the amount of money, time and resources that can and will be brought to bear to gridlock the issue in the mind of the public...
There is a mountain of physical evidence that blows the government story in my mind, but my experience says that it will never penetrate the consciousness of the American people in a way that will bring about change. What will penetrate, from my experience, is taking non-scientific reports that most people instantly accept as credible, whether news reports or government statements or documents, and merely showing that they are lies.
CD theory is great at convincing the already initiated. Pretty ineffective outside of that. On the street, talk of explosions end up being a side show if your lucky. Most people end up associating CD activists with the insanity and pain inherent in the collapse of the towers. Most people have not only distanced themselves from the physical evidence, but distanced themselves from the an extreme phenomenon of pain sparked on 9/11.
Then what did "most people" do? Pass on that pain down the social network pecking order until this behavior is an absolutely required survival mechanism and a sort of pop-heroism instead of just a nasty habit. Then create more vacuous and indomitable social networks to facilitate the disposal of any and all pain and suffering. And the easier the target for dumping, the better.
A CD activist is a pretty easy target for psychosocial dumping. Outside the 9/11 Truth movement, that is. A CD activist is representing the most monstrous moment of 9/11, which probably means they've been spending their free time obsessively viewing every retrievable clip of the collapse. And if they are very publicly excited about it, it means they must have gotten very excited when watching all those clips. So excited that they have to go public, against the obvious and overwhelming common sense of self-preservation, donning their illusory costume of officially recognized physicist, elected official, intelligence agent (the noble kind, of course), etc. It's kind of like Halloween, yet stranger and a lot less sociable.
Considering there is also no clear, actionable evidence for CD, just some theories more clever and potentially informed than others, the chance of promoting "9/11 Truth" through this angle is resoundingly and repeatedly less than zero. Even if one disregards that most people not only refuse to risk their social standing with any issue relating to 9/11, but most people really enjoy that their social standing is actually bolstered by belittling the ultimately indefensible theories of CD. Debunkers need not get this much play. Or so easily bailed out. It's fish in a barrel.
This Ruppert is an agent theme is disappointing, supported by Rep of all people. Someone needs to talk to that boy. I remember Ruppert posting an apology for absolutely dismissing CD in the early days of 911truth, but I can't find the link right now.
and he also propositioned my wife. LOL!!
Doesn't sound funny to me. Its out of line, if that's what happened. And should have been promptly reported to the organizers. Unless he thought she was on her own or unmarried, obviously.
Let's not sit around and pick apart Rupperts strange ego. As far as the issues are concerns he's someone with something to offer in some areas and not in others. Just try and tell Victronix here that the CD topic is a totally bogus concern. She knows a lot more about it than he does.
Ruppert is right that CD has the potential to be a distraction and aspects of that investigation appeal to those who would rather look at pictures than read anything. I'm also trying to figure out myself what would come of definite proof either way. On the other hand, if you fully accept the likelihood that the official story is bogus, and given the highly unlikely scenario under any circumstances of all three buildings thoroughly collapsing, and considering that the NIST report concluded that total collapse was unlikely, and given the lack of any serious adaptation of building codes as a result of the collapse, and given the fact that the foundation columns of building seven were solid rather than i-beams and none of them were left standing, etc,... it seems fair to say that not everyone concerned with the controlled demolition hypothesis is just dealing in disinformation.
Ruppert is not at the extreme on this issue as has been pointed about above. It seems that some believe that the issue will get more respectful mainstream attention if the physical evidence is not discussed. Others want to feel like they are skeptics but not conspiracy theorists, whatever that implies. And some will argue that it wasn't a controlled demolition with no apparent reason and no more information than those arguing for it. In other words, we see a range of reasons not to deal with the issue. Some of them more valid than others.
My personal approach is to be duly skeptical, appreciate that some have got that base well covered, and promote others issues as they are less represented or understood within the movement. I'm not at all thrilled at signs that say, "9/11 = Controlled Demolition." On the other hand, some people on the street know only about that part of the movement and it can be the starting point of a educational conversation.
Doesn't sound funny to me. Its out of line, if that's what happened. And should have been promptly reported to the organizers. Unless he thought she was on her own or unmarried, obviously.
he had no way of knowing she was married (in fact, that was the period when we were separated) and it was not an explicit sexual proposition - and yes i do think its funny. lol my wife was smoking hot and Ruppert is... well... you know....
I think Ruppert's take is that issues like CD will never get a fair shake in the MSM and I agree. However, I also think that alternative media has some relevance here. The difference between JFK and 9/11 is that JFK was in a time where the MSM was king and had ultimate control over public perceptions. That's not so much the case any more, although a certain segment of the population still buys the propaganda of outlets like Fox News. That segment of the population is actually quite large in some respects.
It seems that some believe that the issue will get more respectful mainstream attention if the physical evidence is not discussed.
While it may be true that some believe this, this isn't precisely what Ruppert is arguing. Ruppert argues that self incriminating statements (i.e. demonstrable lies) are beyond spin, and the "parading experts" cannot easily disassemble and muddy the truth in this situation.
Put another way, Ruppert is framing the debate on individuals rather than abstract concepts (was a building blown up, or wasn't it). The point is that the MSM will always debate the truth on the issue of what happened to the buildings, but they cannot debate the fact, for example, that NORAD gave us three contradictory explanations of what happened on 9/11.
From the Washington Post:
"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . ."
and:
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."
these are not theories open to debate. these are declarative statements from the people who ran the 911 Commission.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/1181806...
For me personally, Matt Taibbi was the toughest debunker. There was something about his manner and logic which I found beyond the pale irritating and troublesome. One of his comments did stand out:
To me, the 9/11 Truth movement is, itself, a classic example of the pathology of George Bush's America. Bush has presided over a country that has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes, one of which happens to be Bush's own government. All of these tribes have things in common; they're insular movements that construct their own reality by cherry-picking the evidence they like from the vast information marketplace, violently disbelieve in the humanity of those outside their ranks, and lavishly praise their own movement mediocrities as great thinkers and achievers.
I could shake his chronic dismissal, coy provocation, and hypocritical cherry picking, but I couldn't shake that statement. I was already seeing the reruns of that behavior in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Nor could I shake the lingering thought that I was handing it to Taibbi, gift wrapped. Now I'm embarrassed that I spent quite a bit of effort and time doing exactly that.
Taibbi's key provocation amounted saying there is something wrong with you if you cannot give a sufficient answer in response to your own inquiry.
9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime.
Forget for a minute all those Internet tales about inexplicable skyscraper fires, strange holes in the ground at Shanksville and mysterious flight manifestoes. What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?
Yeah, Matt, forget the facts, focus on theory, so you can do your shtick with gleeful impunity. Then to really stick it to the truthers:
There are as many Thomas Paines in the 9/11 Truth movement as there are Isaac Newtons among the Intelligent Design crowd.
Ouch Matt. But by god, we will disprove you on that one. We are the ones who know what the stakes are. We will theorize with the best of them. And in doing so we allowed our solid concern about the questions be completely drained by our ambition, if not desperation, to accurately theorize about these questions by using a comprehensive lack of key and actionable evidence. At the moment we became theorists, we crossed the Rubicon.
The well of newly discovered information in regards to 9/11 was noticeably drying up around 2004-05. The 9/11 Commission was noticeably more of a sinkhole of info instead of a fountain. Bush was reelected. That Ruppert book was difficult and perplexing. We wanted critical mass, but doubted it could happen as a movement of freaky but well-mannered sleuths.
Enter Webster Tarpley, Alex Jones (and his bullhorn), Judy Wood, WeAreChange, Jim Fetzer, etc. Enter 9/11 Was An Inside Job!!!!!(REPEAT). Enter "scum" interventions, pep rallies, t-shirts. Enter blogger flame wars about a veritable cornucopia of theory, viral in nature, creating a fierce fragmentation of the movement, and most importantly, an endless sinkhole of accusations of misinfo/disinfo and the resultant veiled threats, dehumanizing marginalization, absolute delusion, and agent witchhunts.
We certainly weren't going to let anybody get bored with all those facts we paged through on cooperativeresearch.org. Except the very policy makers and public and media we hoped to originally inform and persuade. Now they are free to be entertained by our rodeo clown routine, leaving us to deal with the bull.
he had no way of knowing she was married (in fact, that was the period when we were separated) and it was not an explicit sexual proposition -
Oh, well that's much clearer. Maybe you don't know, but there was an attempt to seduce/set up Ruppert via sexual harrasment before. So when relating something that could be spun like that, its always best to give full context. "He propositioned my wife" sounds loads different from what happened.
Thanks for the clarification, John.
I don't read 9/11 blogger at all. I haven't for about a year or two.
The current "recent headlines" might be clue as to why I don't:
Wikipedia editors livid over new "Active Thermitic Material" paper
An interview with Annie Machon
Niels Harrit on mainstream Danish TV
NYC Ballot Initiative Relaunched as NYC CAN
Deseret News: "Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say"
What you need to know about "Peer-review"
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
It has been fairly clear for years which outlets and individuals in the movement are actually interested in, and capable of reasonable analysis. I'm not going to get angry that Reprehensor is calling Ruppert an agent; it's to be expected.
giveback wrote:
A CD activist is a pretty easy target for psychosocial dumping. Outside the 9/11 Truth movement, that is. A CD activist is representing the most monstrous moment of 9/11, which probably means they've been spending their free time obsessively viewing every retrievable clip of the collapse. And if they are very publicly excited about it, it means they must have gotten very excited when watching all those clips.
I always come back to concept that many in the 9/11 TM are continually trying to prove the case to themselves (and by extension to their world), no matter how long they've been involved. They want that magic "smoking gun" so that they can be sure one way or another. This is actually demonstrative of their inability to be rational--by assimilating a broad spectrum of information and continually refining their understanding and maintaining an open mind. These people cannot accept the paradox that none of us truly "knows for sure," but for those of us who have digested the broad spectrum of evidence, there is (currently) no real doubt about complicity.
The physical evidence lends itself to this approach, because it falsely offers "concrete evidence." But this evidence is significantly more "open to interpretation" than the documentary evidence, that as Ruppert says, can be used "TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE LYING."
To be obsessively focused on CD is myopic and will alienate anyone from most people. This myopia will look desperate and unhealthy to most people, and in the case of many CD promoters, this will be true. CD and physical evidence stick in people's minds (via the media) as THE central theses of the conspiracy theorists. This is not good. It is not a sound approach; it doesn't have a foundation or a structure. As they said, the exterior of the WTC was supposed to remain structurally sound after an airplane impact, just like a screen does when a pencil punctures it. Our case for government complicity should be just as sound.
wife was smoking hot
Careful John you are using the past tense here. :)
When I first got involved in 9/11 Truth, back when I was still in high school, all I did was talk about physical evidence. I knew nothing else. With the looks I got, I might as well have been wrapped up in tinfoil. Over the years that I've been reading on the subject, I can certainly say that response has been much more positive since I began discussing more about the documented, non-debatable evidence. For Truth Action day last April I made 60 flyers detailing the lack of reprimanding on those who failed to defend 9/11. I gave out all sixty flyers. In contrast, a meetup I went to years ago when I first got involved had almost no production while I strongly discussed physical evidence.
Having said all that, I think physical evidence is an important thing to analyze. I think it has a lot to say about what happened on 9/11. But as far as proving it was an inside job and promotional strategy, documented evidence is a far more efficient approach.
Ruppert radio interview:
A CD activist is a pretty easy target for psychosocial dumping. Outside the 9/11 Truth movement, that is. A CD activist is representing the most monstrous moment of 9/11, which probably means they've been spending their free time obsessively viewing every retrievable clip of the collapse. And if they are very publicly excited about it, it means they must have gotten very excited when watching all those clips. So excited that they have to go public, against the obvious and overwhelming common sense of self-preservation, donning their illusory costume of officially recognized physicist, elected official, intelligence agent (the noble kind, of course), etc. It's kind of like Halloween, yet stranger and a lot less sociable.
"Illusory costume of officially recognized physicist"? I don't get it. Are you talking about Steven Jones? Jones has published in Nature multiple times.
they've been spending their free time obsessively viewing every retrievable clip of the collapse.
Gee, we were subjected to yet another documentary about the horrific details of the holocaust tonight. Why? Because it was a horrific crime. Would we say that those who had to sift through the evidence because they wanted to expose a crime were "spending their free time obsessively viewing every retrievable clip of the holocaust"? They had to do that to expose the truth of the crimes. There are a lot of crimes that are "exciting" to average people. That's why there are crime programs 24/7 on tv. But that doesn't make them any less real as crimes.
Demolition could only have been accomplished from the inside. Prove demolition, and the whole story comes apart. There is no other option for how explosives could have ended up there than insider involvement.
Richard Gage and a half dozen others spent the day exposing the truths of the demolitions from a booth inside the National Convention of the American Institute of Architects in San Francisco. Over 20,000 architects. It's not nothing.
Hi all. As my name indicates, I am a newcomer to the 911 discussion. I am not American and do not live in America. I have lived in a number of third world countries where American foreign policy issues and interference became noticeable, leading me to widen my reading - to Naomi Klein, Chomsky, Ahmed, Parenti, etc. (Note, while I am critical and sceptical of US foreign policy, I like the American people).
Along this road, I came across the issue of the 911 event used as a cassus belli for geo-strategic wars. Yes, I went down a few rabbit holes along the way - seems many Americans have been exploring this subject - some in an honest and rational way, others in an emotive, illogical way, and yet others in what appears to be a downright disinformative way.
For an outsider and a newcomer to the discussion, it can all appear quite confusing. Recently I was recommended to this site - which appears to be of a high standard and worth reading. But this particular thread leads to confusion again.
I read 911Blogger every now and then to keep in touch.
I followed the release of Professor Harrit's paper because one of my good friends is Danish and I know the Danes to be (generally speaking) careful, methodical, non-dramatic people. I take the paper seriously partly because of Harrit's involvement and the way he places a 35 year chemistry career on the line.
Yet I now confused to read that TruthMod says he doesn't read 911blogger because of the following headlines;
Wikipedia editors livid over new "Active Thermitic Material" paper [Surely this is of interest to all who are interested in censorship and the free flow of information?]
Niels Harrit on mainstream Danish TV [Surely this is of interest to all who are interested in how the mainstream media narrowly 'frames' the news or ignores some newsworthy front-page items outright (So how did Evil Al Qaeda get access to Nano-Thermite?) and hypes up others (swine flu)?]
NYC Ballot Initiative Relaunched as NYC CAN [I've followed your arguments here but find the Comments Section of 911blogger a good 'balance' to the article and understand the controversies involved there.]
Deseret News: "Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say" [So what's wrong with the Fourth Estate reporting news without fear or favour in the name of democracy? What's the objection?]
What you need to know about "Peer-review" [I personally found this a helpful article. in general terms]
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [I would be surprised if 911blogger DIDN'T report on this fascinating news item. Civilians are not familiar with nano-structured pyrotechnic material; we are on the back foot when confronted with advanced technologies developed by the military.]
Interview with Annie Machon [Ah, here I agree with you. She used to be joined at the hip with "ex" intell Shayler. She herself is "ex" and should be treated with a certain amount of caution, imo]
911 is not only an American issue because the fallout and repercussions have been global in nature. Many of us from around the world have woken up and are reading and buying books and putting two and two together. Sometimes we turn to the better American sites in an effort to understand, but find ourselved stymied by seemingly inexplicable quibbles.
I don't want to throw a cat among the pigeons here. But I do want to indicate to you that many outsiders are reading these sites - people from all over the world - and sometimes clearer (rather than arcane) explanations would be helpful.
Great site anyway! And thanks for listening.
Newcomer--welcome to the TruthMove forum. Thank you for your thoughts and questions. This forum is mostly frequented by a small group of movement veterans, and sometimes we do talk in shorthand or assume certain background. But as you point out, there are others reading who may not post. I'm glad you've joined the conversation. I'll try to explain myself better.
I don't read 911blogger because I don't think that staying up with the latest 9/11 truth news is necessarily the best path to promoting truth and justice--especially on a site that overplays demolition and usually does not address the larger context of class and environmental degradation. I fully support authentic research and promotion concerning demolition, but I've been in the movement long enough to be skeptical of that issue's effectiveness in forwarding our cause.
I also question the effectiveness of 9/11 truth itself, as an issue that is often promoted alone or paired with speculation and paranoid grand theories. 9/11 isn't the only truth that's important, but for many in the movement, it seems to become so.
There is also a measure of exhaustion that comes with being involved with 9/11 truth over the course of several years. I would say that almost every person on our forum has "burnt out" at some time or another due to the frustration of dealing with this movement. 911blogger, WeAreChange, Loose Change, Alex Jones, and other "pillars" of the movement have pushed 9/11 truth in certain directions that many of us see as counterproductive to our larger cause. This is part of the reason many of us have disassociated with the larger movement.
I feel that most people will find more insightful thinking, strategies, and approaches to understanding and promoting the truth on sites like TruthMove, 911research.com, Oilempire.us, Cooperative Research...
The case for complicity was made years ago, one does not have to stay up on the latest news to be an effective promoter of the truth. People involved in 9/11 truth often get stuck in the "information phase," in which they obsessively pour over every bit of information they can. From the beginning, TruthMove was founded with a recognition that we must move into the realm of (reasoned and informed) action, rather than fetishizing the details and continually trying to prove the case to ourselves.
Gee, we were subjected to yet another documentary about the horrific details of the holocaust tonight. Why? Because it was a horrific crime. Would we say that those who had to sift through the evidence because they wanted to expose a crime were "spending their free time obsessively viewing every retrievable clip of the holocaust"? They had to do that to expose the truth of the crimes.
A comparison involving the Holocaust never flies, and is especially unfortunate and ill advised when compared to the repeated examination, done by people in their free time, of the accessible evidence of the collapse of the WTC towers. Even with the best of intentions, that comparison can be horrendously misconstrued with ease.
You must log in to post.