Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

TruthMove Controlled Demolition page (28 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    It is perhaps interesting to note the fact that people within 9/11 truth who decry the marginalizing, sensationalistic, and effectively unprovable nature of controlled demolition (I count myself among these people) can be equated with people within the larger progressive movement who decry 9/11 truth itself for these very same perceived drawbacks. We all have our line in the sand, as Dave vonKleist said.

    Many people think that the case for government complicity can't be proven, that's it's outlandish (or sounds outlandish to the "average person"), and that pursuing such an idea is unproductive for real social change. They say, "Focus on the concrete stuff, you don't have to get into all that conspiracy theorizing." They think that 9/11 truth taints all progressive causes. They think there are more important issues and more important information that you should be filling your brain with. It's worth considering.

    Controlled demolition theorizing is full of details and contradictory sources that most people don't have the patience for. For a lot of people, so is 9/11 truth. For me, CD is one small, unreliable piece of the puzzle and the technical details seem too far abstracted from the big picture to be worth focusing on. To equate our whole movement to CD is ridiculous and irresponsible.

    I'm agnostic on CD and I respect both mark and BrianG's input on the topic. I do wonder what we're trying to accomplish by debating though. Most of us have poured over the evidence at one point or another and we're not likely to change our minds. Are we getting anywhere by arguing these points in 2013?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. truthmover
    Administrator

    No.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. BrianG
    Member

    The assertions that government complicity in the 9/11 attacks and that controlled demolition have been proven rely mostly on evidence that is vulnerable to criticism on grounds that it is circumstantial.

    What is undeniable is that the official investigations are inadequate. Of the widows' 300 questions, the 9/11 Commission only answered 27, and the conflicts of interest of Dr. Zelikow and the blatant perjury of Dr. Rice show that the Commission was corrupt. The incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest nature of the NIST reports are easily demonstrated.

    Why do we allow the issue to be framed in terms of proof? When the official side has not proven their case, the expectation that conspiracy theorists should prove theirs is unreasonable until a thorough and honest investigation has been done.

    I regret the days that Dr. Griffin ever claimed that "inside job" had been proven, that Mr. Gage ever claimed that controlled demolition had been proven, and that claims were ever made that the presence of nano-engineered incendiaries in the dust had been proven. These claims have served to draw the credulous and repel critical thinkers.

    As to whether there's any point in debating Mark, yes, I think it's worthwhile for Mark to expose his evidence to counterargument and for me to expose mine. That allows Mark to teach me, and me to have an opportunity to try to teach Mark, and serves to improve the arguments of us both.

    Posted 10 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.