Hi Vic:
It's not an "agenda" against so-called physical evidence.
There are a fair number of people who are persuaded of complicity but don't believe the demolition theories, although there is a huge peer pressure campaign to browbeat anyone who suggests there might be some problems with the claims.
http://rigint.blogspot.com/2007/07/signs-of-times....
Qlipoth said...
Mark wrote:
"No, Jeff, you are talking about artificially delimiting 9-11 discussion to one course available--as good as Ruppert ever attempted to do,..."
...thus confirming once again that poor old Michael Ruppert is still Whipping-Boy Number One for New Truthers everywhere. Of course Ruppert didn't "artificially delimit" anything. (How could he?) What he did do was to predict very early on that the "physical evidence" line of enquiry would lead to endless, fruitless and increasingly arcane "debates", before eventually terminating somewhere deep up its own ass. QED.
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in June 2001, discretion taken away from field commanders and entrusted to the Secretary of Defense (the order was rescinded after 9/11); names like Dave Frasca, Mahmood Ahmed, Wally Hilliard, Randy Glass, Michael Springmann, Robert Wright, Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh; Atta's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? (Or not usually. I'll give credit to Alex Jones: I saw his appearance on CNN a couple of weeks ago, and he really gave it his all to show there's much more to the case than suspicion of demolition.)
Do the people arguing the loudest for demolition, who suggest I accept the "official story," even know half this stuff?