TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

KPFA 9/11 anniversary coverage - demolition focus (7 posts)

  1. truthmod

    I listened to some of the extensive 9/11 coverage around the anniversary on KPFA. They had some interesting debates with anti-conspiracy folks, but the focus always seemed to be controlled demolition, no matter who was talking. I am disappointed and suspicious about the lopsided focus being promoted by these supposedly "trustworthy" sources such as KPFA, Project Censored, etc. I think Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth becoming so prominent is a very, very bad sign.

    On the 10th anniversary, a time for looking at the big picture, do we really need to be discussing nano-thermite, jet fuel, fire temperatures, structural columns, free-fall speed, and Ace Elevator having the opportunity to plant explosives??? This conversation alienates a huge percentage of people who are not on board with the grand conspiracy and besides that, almost all of it is SPECULATION. It gets us nowhere and I'm surprised that experienced and educated activists would let the debate be shifted in this direction so drastically.

    You can come away from a lecture or video about controlled demolition with ZERO political or historical background that makes up the massive case for questioning 9/11. You should be very wary of people who rest their case on limited, speculative, and technically-oriented arguments.

    There is a big difference between arguing that explosives took down those buildings (show me the video of people planting them, you say there is residue in the dust?, ok, who had that dust and who tested that dust, it could have been contaminated, right?) and providing FACTS that show means, motive, and opportunity and social/historical continuity for such deceptions.

    Thanks KPFA, but I'll take dry, sourced FACTS from Paul Thompson or Jon Gold over the flashy hypnotic appeal of controlled demolition.

    I know the CD people would say that they have "facts" and that they have "proven" that explosives were used but I'm not buying it. A fact is something like, "In September, 2000, PNAC, a group that included prominent Bush Administration officials said, 'the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.'"

    Our opponents can't refute that FACT. They can question it's significance or say it doesn't prove anything, but it still stands as a FACT. It also doesn't take an hour long technical explanation to be communicated.

    The Facts Speak For Themselves

    Posted 6 years ago #
  2. BrianG

    I share your concerns and I'm sorry that the story of Behrooz Sarshar and Richard Clarke's recent complaints have not gotten more attention. You should recognize, though, that the alleged assassination of Osama bin Laden has in the public mind mooted a lot of the 9/11 issues. As a movement we very wisely avoided grabbing at the "It was faked!" claim even though on purely logical grounds a great deal of skepticism is justified that Osama was actually killed. But the public loses interest in some of our best evidence about CIA/al Qaeda ties, and Osama being allowed to escape from Tora Bora. We need a new formulation of the non-CD information that tells the public why they should care.

    I disagree strongly with your claim that the WTC collapse evidence is all speculation. There are some very strong points in there--points that have the potential to reach scientists on the basis of science instead of ideology and emotion. NIST has been forced to admit that WTC7 fell at freefall for the first 2.25 seconds of the observable collapse. This is in their final report. NIST has also stated that freefall means there is no structural support whatsoever. You need only look at the video to see that the complete removal of the structural support had to be symmetrical and simultaneous all the way across the building---otherwise we would see tipping. This is a fact available to anyone who is curious about physics. It has the potential to reach hundreds of millions around the world who have no interest in the CIA and US global domination and all that.

    There is also the fact that ten years from now hundreds or even thousands of engineering schools all over the world will be able to run their own models of the collapses of the three ground zero highrises. And they just might prove the 1500 first-responding architects and engineers right.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  3. mark

    There's a reason why the media loves to make 9/11 "truth" dependent on the demolition theories and not suppressed warnings and overlapping wargames.

    And what is a "first responding architect?" I doubt there were any architects or engineers - real or fake - at the WTC site looking for victims to rescue.

    The fact the firefighters used transits to watch the towers and 7 buckle before they fell down debunks demolition.

    Anyone familiar with blacksmithing can see through the "jet fuel didn't melt steel" argument. Steel loses strength at much cooler temperatures than the melting point. And jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning in the blast furnace that the WTC became. None of the demolition theories explain how the electronics for the alleged demolition would function flawlessly in the middle of an inferno.

    The enablers of 9/11 are happy for the demolition theories to reach hundreds of millions around the world since it's important for them to control both sides of the "9/11 truth" debate to ensure it remains an isolated effort with zero political impact. Thesis, antithesis. They don't have any interest in talking about the actual facts of how the attacks were allowed and assisted, nor does most of the truth movement.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  4. BrianG

    Mark, you didn't deal with the fact that the alleged assassination of Osama has mooted, in the public mind, the questions about the suppressed warnings and the war games.

    A first-responding architect would be one who was willing to sign on to Gage's petition in 2007 when he first got off the ground. The reluctance of architects and engineers to question official claims about jet fuel melting steel and the ludicrous zipper/pancake theory; their reluctance to decry the destruction of the physical evidence at Ground Zero; their reluctance to comment on the gaping holes in the NIST report and NIST's inability to provide physical evidence to support their blatantly fudged computer models; and their reluctance to admit to the blatant contradictions between the official accounts and the laws of physics are an indictment of the profession and of academia in general.

    Y'all gave the warnings and war games your best shot. It failed to penetrate. Should we keep advancing the same fruitless argument?

    Personally what I push in public is the widows' 273 unanswered questions, Condi's provable perjury before the 9/11 Commission, and the failure of NIST to explain the most mysterious aspects of the towers' demise.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  5. truthmover

    "Mark, you didn't deal with the fact that the alleged assassination of Osama has mooted, in the public mind, the questions about the suppressed warnings and the war games."

    I doubt you are correct and also that you have any evidence to back that up.

    And, in fact, those topics have been getting more attention in the last couple of weeks than they have in a very long time from some fairly mainstream sources.

    I also consider MOST CD hypotheses to be essentially speculative. There are some very basis physics arguments you can make that reveal likely problems with the official explanation, but CD research really doesn't carry the issue in a very important direction. It can say nothing about means, motive, or opportunity.

    I've argued often that the best CD research could hope to achieve is increasing skepticism. In that way it can be a useful tool. But, frankly, anyone who thinks it will crack the case is misguided. Even if we could PROVE the use of Thermite, all we'd have a compelling argument for an new investigation.

    Problem is, we've had that for a long time. And those pushing CD to distract the movement or take advantage have been very successful in convincing people that CD matters. It really doesn't. It's like Ruppert's example of the Zapruder film at the beginning of "Truth and Lies." You can show the world but it "won't change anything."

    I support CD research. I'm strongly against making it a central focus in any way.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  6. truthmod

    I disagree strongly with your claim that the WTC collapse evidence is all speculation.

    I didn't say that. I said "almost all of it is SPECULATION." I'll add to that that most of us are not qualified to interpret the data that is presented to us regarding CD, whether it comes from a sleazy disinfo video or from a respected source like Richard Gage. Therefore, whether it is facts that are presented or not becomes almost irrelevant. On top of all this, the "conversion" or paradigm shift that results from the "realization" that towers were blown up is usually a superficial one that appeals to people's gut instincts and need for clarity and concrete answers (smoking guns). It doesn't have much to do with a broad and deep paradigm shift.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  7. mark

    The material that the History Commons effort has been digging up is not speculation. Perhaps a bit incomplete, but it's the only "new" research on 9/11 complicity in years.

    The towers were demolished by flying planes into them, and WTC 7 had part of the tower fall onto it. The firefighters watched the towers and 7 bulging before they fell down, that is why the media loves to highlight demolition theories while ignoring suppressed warnings and overlapping wargames.

    Posted 6 years ago #


You must log in to post.