TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

CIT is useless (5 posts)

1. Arcterus
   Member

   http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2010/08/cit-is-use...

   Excerpt:

   Some time ago I wrote an article about the importance of not wasting time on CIT. Most of their followers are impossible to convince and consequently the endless debates with them are entirely fruitless, resulting in nothing more than distraction. But that's not to say we should ignore them completely. Just because we ignore them doesn't mean they won't be zipping around spouting their flawed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.

   There's an issue I just don't see talked about often enough in regards to CIT. People are ready to talk about the things I mentioned above and more. The contradicting testimony, the over-zealous nature of their followers, the fact that the testimony contradicts physical evidence, all these things that relate to debunking them. What I don't see talked about is how this all plays into the legal implications of what CIT is proposing.

   Let's say that CIT is right. For the sake of argument, let's say that all of those unsupported excuses, all of that "all the other witnesses are wrong/disinfo" and that "the physical evidence was faked" was, indeed, how it went. Well, perhaps you are satisfied with the evidence CIT has passed on and agree with their proposed conclusion, but bear in mind that when it comes to the big picture this means nothing. What convinces you and what can pass convincingly in court are two entirely separate things, and if our goal as a movement is to merit a new investigation to achieve accountability, then the court method is the more important one, correct? If you agree that trial is going to be a necessary factor in the grand scheme of things, so to speak, then you also have to acknowledge that, well...CIT is useless.

   Posted 13 years ago #
2. truthmover
   Administrator

   Lot's of good stuff in there.

   Takes me back to Ruppert stating that speculation about the physical evidence of 911 would lead us to the same place it lead the JFK movement. There's simply a difference between what we may know and what will be convincing to a jury or our audience.

   I believe that the most compelling argument that we have is based in the contradictory sets of official documents which demonstrate that many of the more mainstream assumptions about the attack are fully called into question. There simply are dramatically unanswered questions related to the 911 attack.

   As you suggest, CIT isn't going to help us answer those questions. They have even more questions, many of which can't be answered, and some of which are insulting to family member of victims. They also have a good deal of certainty, which does not suit their relatively unqualified speculation about the implications of their "data."

   Posted 13 years ago #
3. Arcterus
   Member

   Takes me back to Ruppert stating that speculation about the physical evidence of 911 would lead us to the same place it lead the JFK movement. There's simply a difference between what we may know and what will be convincing to a jury or our audience.

   Well, that's the problem, isn't it? People think too much on an individual and short-term basis. As if just stating what you think and shouting on the streets will be sufficient. Somewhere along the line they forget that there's a whole legal process to it.

   I agree that if we focused more on official documentation, that would be more efficient.

   Posted 13 years ago #
4. mark
   Member

   There's also the problem of claims marketed as "physical evidence" being false despite their labeling.

   ---

   http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/04/cons...

   Jeff said...

   As I've posted before, my point is this: I've seen "9/11 Truth" be hijacked by speculation, whether valid or not, and the best and hardest evidence for conspiracy neglected.

   I know what the collapse of the buildings look like, and I have questions about WTC 7, but we have answers about other things re 9/11 that I consider to be much more dangerous to the conspirators if only they could get some traction.

   I'm talking about things like the coincident wargames including the live-fly simulation of hijackings; the al-Qaeda-ISI-CIA triangle and Omar Saeed Shiekh; Ptech; insider trading, Cheney taking on the new role of coordinating a response to terror attacks on US soil in May, 2001; the standing order for shootdowns changing in June 2001, discretion taken away from field commanders and entrusted to the Secretary of Defense (the order was rescinded after 9/11); names like Dave Frasca, Mahmood Ahmed, Wally Hilliard, Randy Glass, Michael Springmann, Robert Wright, Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh; Atta's drugs and spooks Florida odyssey; the destruction and cover-up of evidence; Jeb Bush's hand in purging flight school records, and on and on - that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. That's the kind of stuff I wish I was reading when "9/11 Truth" hits corporate media, but it's not, is it? ...

   Do the people arguing the loudest for demolition, who suggest I accept the "official story," even know half this stuff?

   Posted 13 years ago #
5. christs4sale
   Administrator

   The strategy with CIT, if there was some form of a credible movement at this point, should be to appeal to any credible speakers that might be attending the "mixed" events and get those people to be more principled. You need to build a group of people, websites and events that just eliminate CIT and other forms of disinformation from the debate in the hypothetical short-term. The issue is that a lot of people have spent a lot of time debunking garbage that we already new was garbage from the start. Now you might say it is for the purpose of capturing the hearts and minds of those who are honest and do not know who is telling the truth. Maybe there should be a small amount of analysis for that purpose, but if you have people that are not getting the picture, then you do not want to be involved with them anyway. Why waste the time and the energy? This is coming from a source that can keep throwing more and more CITs at us.

   Posted 13 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.