Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

THESES (15 posts)

  1. NicholasLevis
    Member

    1) There is a 9/11 cover-up. The official investigations have systematically excluded and distorted known evidence that is relevant and salient to an understanding of the events, origins, context and aftermath of September 11th. The 9/11 Commission was obviously compromised in its personnel with outrageous conflicts of interest. It openly adopted a mission of whitewash. Its investigation revealed an agenda through the final report’s exclusion of facts and witness testimonies heard by the Commission. The Report text itself can be shown to be deliberately false on enough key points that it fails to merit trust, and as a whole earns rejection as a serious or truthful account of September 11th.

    1a) Point 1 in itself is sufficient cause for citizens to demand new, uncompromised investigation and full truth disclosure around the September 11th events, given the overarching importance of these events as a trigger and justification for policies and actions in the United States and around the world. Furthermore, the known conduct of the official investigations constitutes probable cause for criminal investigation of fraud and obstruction of justice after the fact.

    2) The Islamist terror networks associated with the figure of Bin Ladin do exist, although their reach and power has been wildly exaggerated by “War on Terror” propagandists; but they are largely the intended product of U.S. covert policies stretching back for decades. The cases of Ali Mohamed and Emad Salem are not exceptional but paradigmatic of the link. Those names and this thesis were unspeakable in The 9/11 Commission Report, which also systematically ignored the sponsorship and financing of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and, in fact, the alleged hijackers through the Pakistani ISI, a CIA proxy.

    2a) As it has been conducted and presented, the “War on Terror” is a fear scam.

    3) The cumulative evidence excluded from serious reporting and consideration in the official investigations and the U.S. corporarte media points to actionable, specific foreknowledge of Sept. 11 event details on the part of U.S. and foreign-ally officials; systematic suppression of law enforcement efforts to expose the alleged hijackers or otherwise prevent the attacks; participation in and orchestration of the attacks by elements within the U.S. covert policy and military apparatus; and direct facilitation of the attacks by officials in the U.S. administration in the form of a strategic group failure to act as events unfolded that in its cumulative nature suggests deliberation. (This is what I mean by the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.)

    4) There exists probable cause for a criminal investigation by grand jury to issue subpoenas and explore indictments relating to point 3. All demands for a complete rendering of what happened on September 11th are ludicrous insofar as they precede such an investigation and are thus based on insufficient knowledge.

    5) If point 3 is true, it would not be an unprecedented event in the history of the United States or of other states and imperial powers. False-flag attacks; false casus-belli provocations; covert operations and psychological operations of the intelligence services directed against own nationals; mass murder and the acceptance of mass casualties at home as well as (in even greater numbers) abroad; and ambitious and seemingly reckless plans for imperial venture and global domination are all longstanding and systemic elements of the U.S. political, deep-political and parapolitical environments, stretching back through more than a century.

    6) In American culture, “conspiracy theory” is a term of attack employed selectively against ideas that contradict official stories of the government or establishment, designed to produce a conditioned response of rejection and association of persons so labeled with madness, delusion, and personal wretchedness. Use of this term does not constitute an argument and usually indicates prejudice on the speaker’s part.

    7) The 9/11 truth movement is the subject of organized disruption by a number of its professed exponents. A closely linked network of actors have cooperated for years, regardless of their respective motivations, in a) advocating a changing series of conflicting and increasingly outlandish, patently false and highly specific ideas regarding peripheral details of 9/11 that specifically create psychological disgust, especially in key groups like New Yorkers, DC residents, or the families of September 11th victims; and b) well-poisoning, insults, hectoring and preemptive “snitch-jacketing” (e.g., accusations of COINTELPRO) directed at movement exponents who do not immediately adopt and promote these outlandish and patently false ideas.

    8) The primary exponents of “debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories” a) systematically ignore or trivialize the importance of point 1; b) focus primarily on attacking the outlandish ideas referred to in point 7, often identifying their exponents as the true and only leaders of the “9/11 truth movement”; c) engage in smear-by-association by identifying all other 9/11 truth advocates with the outlandish ideas, often engaging in false attributions and insinuations; d) exist in a largely symbiotic relationship with the exponents of internal disruption specified in 7; e) tend to prefer to reduce 9/11 skepticism entirely to the question of whether the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by explosives, or else to whether the Pentagon was hit by something other than a Boeing 757.

    9) The question of whether the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by explosives remains interesting but unresolved. This a legitimate subject for debate and should also be considered by an unhindered investigation; but the argument is not a prerequisite for 9/11 skepticism. Proof of demolition would tend to demonstrate 9/11 was an inside job, but 9/11 can be an inside job without demolition.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. JonGold
    Member

    Very well written Nick.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. JonGold
    Member

    I hope you do more of it.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. christs4sale
    Administrator

    2a) As it has been conducted and presented, the “War on Terror” is a fear scam.

    I would replace fear scam with protection racket. Otherwise, excellent work.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. Arabesque
    Member

    The question of whether the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by explosives remains interesting but unresolved.

    I know that there are people who would debate on this point (and it is a physical evidence debate), I think it is safe to say that the official explanation as provided by NIST is inadequate (I would use the term "absurd"--since it is only a "pre-collapse" report, ignores critical evidence such as molten steel referenced in other reports, and other issues); it has been challenged by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and other professionals. The family members support a request for correction to NIST made by STJ911.

    The question of "what happened" versus the "official explanation" applies here: The official explanation is inadequate.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Jon, thanks: But I have done too many of these - book outlines - and not enough books.

    Christs, thanks: done.

    Arabesque: Well, demolition is a sufficient but not necessary component of inside job, and that's my point. But I agree with you and almost worked in what you say before I decided to make it shorter. This is what I had previously:

    This a legitimate subject for debate and should also be subject to an uncompromised investigation, given: the rapid disposal of almost all of the relevant Ground Zero evidence; the failure of NIST and other official investigations to even treat demolition hypotheses in written form, beyond one-sentence dismissals; and the failure to test for physical evidence of such arguments or to advance any explanation for the observable mechanics of the actual collapse collapse, which only comes after what is defined by NIST as the initial failure.

    Nevertheless, I am not definitely convinced. In fact, if I didn't think 9/11 was an inside job, I know I would never be convinced by the demolition argument.

    Should I open a thread to play the devil's advocate? My insane confidence tells me I'd do a better job at it than Manuel Garcia!

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. Very well organized and executed. Is there an intended audience for this?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Intended audience?

    Can you see this as a draft statement of unity on findings by the reality-based community within the world of 9/11 skepticism?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. JohnA
    Member

    i would not suggest, at this time, taking on the devil's advocate position on controlled demolition. it would undermine your efforts. the issue is too deeply felt by too many people . there are those who would seek to discredit everything you attempt to do - simply because you will not genuflect to their conclusions on CD.

    like it or not we do have to acknowledge what's in the public's best interest - and the proliferation of theories surrounding CD makes it an important issue to deal with. i do believe, at this point, that it is in the public's best interest to get definitive answers as to what exactly caused those buildings to collapse.

    but at this point the debate needs to take place in the appropriate arena. we need to support that debate - maybe even create the arena where accredited experts can feel safe to debate the issue - but i do not think we should step into the arena ourselves. we are not engineers.

    "What went wrong" is always an appropriate question.

    "How did this happen" is always a legitimate question.

    it is just as legitimate to demand answers as to WHY and HOW our air defenses failed - as to ask WHY and HOW in hell thousands of people could die in a building collapse that accredited engineeers, physicists and architects are now questioning.

    even Jon Gold would have to agree with this.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. truthmover
    Administrator

    Nick Levis back in the mix!

    There are now a number of posts here that if all bound together, would make our concerns quite clear. Here are a few of them.

    Your post here.

    Truthmod's thread about 'moving the movement forward.' http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/666?replies=1...

    Jon's recent summary of the problem. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/674?replies=1...

    My post about forum moderation being similar to necessary movement strategy. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/666?replies=1...

    Sweetsacrifice's initial 'Enough is Enough' post. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/651?replies=1...

    Victronix important point about just doing it. (!!!) http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/651?replies=1...

    Jan's post about a new PR campaign. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/651?replies=1...

    TruthandJustice911 advocating our unity. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/651/page/3?re...

    Giveback about the psychology of the present moment. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/651/page/2?re...

    Christs4sale's comment about right-wing participants. Principle before association! http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/651/page/2?re...

    The recommendations by Jenny Sparks. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/667?replies=3

    Arabesque covering the KW. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/09/latest-on...

    The comment from Kevin Ryan about predicting future false flag attacks. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/669?replies=2...

    JohnA's comments on infiltration. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/653?replies=2...

    CX's post of Robin Hordon's statement about WAC. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/559?replies=3...

    My holding Les accountable for his event. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/641?replies=2...

    It looks like we are all on just about the same page here, and you sum it all up quite well. Of course you and I both feel like we've been here before. But, yes Nick, you can unclench a bit. It's finally OK to talk about how to make it better. "Revolutionary science" for a while. What will be the next paradigm for the movement? And of course, as Vic makes clear above, it doesn't take many to lead the way.

    We're talking about hosting an event with speakers in the not too distant future. We would like the theme to be broad and unifying. We would like to have a panel comprised of activists from the different movements addressed on our site. Anti-war, environmental, election fraud, 9/11 truth, Constitutional preservation,... and we would like them all to be addressing a common concern. We here feel that the most common concern we share is our investment in informed consent. (Initial thoughts)

    Your summary above is very much about how seriously we are all taking this concern. Being informed and informing others is specifically about facts. There is some really serious civic duty going on here. And that duty is clearly in our focus. The distractions are becoming predictable, and our time is precious. As stated elsewhere, this kind of focus is an essential means to building bridges with other movements.

    Our highest priorities may require greater unity than the 9/11 truth movement alone is able to achieve. But we all feel a duty to the movement to get our house in order. I see progress.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. JonGold
    Member

    I do see this as part of a statement. However, after further consideration, I do think the statement about CD could be "improved..."

    Here's a tidbit I wrote for my letter to the families...

    "As I described earlier, the efforts of the family members that fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission might be considered the "foundation" of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Part of those efforts were compiling a list of questions that was submitted to the 9/11 Commission in the hopes that they would answer them. Unfortunately, they only touched on, at best, 30% of the questions, and ignored the rest.

    One of those questions happened to be for Mayor Rudolph Giuliani:

    "On 9/11, no aircraft hit WTC 7. Why did the building fall at 5:20 PM that evening? Larry Silverstein is heard on a PBS tape saying "I remember getting a call from the, E.R., fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the [WTC 7] building collapse," said Larry Silverstein, WTC Leaseholder. - PBS (9/10/02) Does "pull" mean demolished? What do you know about this?

    Granted, if you want to believe a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, Mr. Dara McQuillan, then "the Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building", and that's what he meant by his "pull it" remark.

    However, the original question, "Why did the building fall at 5:20 PM that evening?" has yet to be answered."

    The families submitted this as a question, and it wasn't answered. That's important to those who think we're the only ones concerned about it.

    Also, in the Conspiracy Theory section, you may mention that the reason "Conspiracy theories" exist is because those who should answer our questions, refuse to do so. It's human nature to question something when the truth about it is denied to you.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. mark
    Member

    No, "pull" does not mean "demolished." It's misinterpretation -- and bait for the "honeypot."

    The more I look at the claims for controlled demolition, the more I'm convinced that all of them are wrong (which is why the media loves to point to them).

    If I'm wrong, and only most of them are wrong, that doesn't touch the core of the evidence for complicity - which was never based on the issue of the collapses.

    Watching the video of the collapsing tower pieces striking WTC 7 made me much less convinced of the demolition argument -- and more convinced that this is not the most productive aspect to focus on.

    There is a lot of "reverse psychology" with some of the partially true / partially false claims inserted into the "truth" movement discourse.

    just because someone tells you the government is lying to you, it doesn't mean they are telling the truth. -- John Judge

    http://www.oilempire.us/911bait.html Most 9/11 skeptics are now familiar with the statement by Larry Silverstein, who leased the WTC shortly before 9/11, that he decided “pull it” regarding Building 7 (the building that collapsed but was not hit by a plane). Some in the 9/11 truth movement made this comment a “smoking gun” for demolition claims, even though the case for demolition of WTC 7 was made long before his comment was publicized, most notably at the website www.wtc7.net


    http://wtc7.net/pullit.html A review of the numerous websites that assert that Silverstein's remark constituted an admission of demolishing WTC 7 is revealing. Few such sites note that the physical characteristics of the collapse exactly match conventional demolitions, or that fires have never before or since felled steel-framed high-rise buildings -- two facts that constitute an overwhelming case for the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Instead, the pull-it controversy seems to have created a distraction, eclipsing the case for controlled demolition.


    “Pull it” is a deliberately ambiguous statement that could have been a form of bait, and now has been discredited by its utterer, probably in an effort to discredit its promoters just as the Rumsfeld “missile” quote was floated and then withdrawn.

    The best website that discussed the “pull it” controversy was by Dutch author Joël v.d. Reijden, who has unfortunately “pulled” his excellent analysis from the web (he evidently grew tired of the abusive emails from promoters of the “no planes” hoaxes). Here is his analysis of “pull it”

    http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review....
    9/11 – My own review of the entire event. Apparently Larry Silverstein tries to explain something to us in the 2002 PBS documentary ‘America Rebuilds’:

    “I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

    I mailed Jowenko BV and asked if 'pull' was an industry term for 'demolish'. They said it wasn't. Implosionworld said the same thing. I run into the same problem when looking into different dictionaries. There is always a distinction made between 'pull down', 'pull away' and 'pull back'. And I have not been able to find one person on the internet who uses this word as a substitute for 'demolish'. So I think it's safe to assume that Larry needs to clarify what he meant, but unfortunately he refuses to do that. In the same PBS documentary this is said by one of the construction workers:

    "[narrator]The department of design and construction had leveled World Trade Center buildings 4 and 5...[telephone rings] Hello?...ow, we're getting ready to pull building six....[The documentary moves on to the next person] We had to be very careful how we demolished building six..."

    Now, lets see what implosionworld told me:

    "There is no such phrase in explo-demo. Most likely he meant "pull out" as in have people evacuate. Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."

    Of course these companies are not going to adhere to any conspiracy theories, but they did help in dispelling another possible red herring. The fact that it is very likely that 7 WTC has been blown up doesn't change at all, but I wonder why Silverstein made this strange statement and especially why PBS conveniently put that 'ready to pull building six' sentence in. Maybe someone is messing with our heads. I don't know.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. Intended audience...

    It looks like you answered it, that this is for like minded individuals in the movement.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Giveback:

    Maybe. As the points of unity in message. Then to be translated for public.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  15. JonGold
    Member

    Mark, I wasn't referring to the Larry Silverstein comment. Just the original question submitted by the families "Why did the building fall at 5:20 PM that evening?" hasn't been addressed.

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.