Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Nicholas giving a dose of reality to Carol Brouillet (20 posts)

  1. christs4sale
    Administrator

    I found this interview relevant because Nicholas' skepticism of the current state of the movement and pessimism is something we can all relate to. He articulates it very well to Carol Brouillet who is clearly not seeing things realistically. It demonstrates the contrast between someone seeing things clearly and the direction where most of the movement seems to be going.

    Thanks Nicholas.

    Also, I thought the comment at the end was pretty funny where Carol says that she wishes Nicholas would be more positive and that his negativity is probably the result watching too much television.

    Listen here:

    http://mp3.wtprn.com/Brouillet/0809/20080922_Mon_B...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. Victronix
    Member

    He spends a lot of time attacking demolitions, but half of all the films this anniversary had nothing on demolitions. What's the point?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. Victronix
    Member

    Sorry I stopped listening after that . . . will get back to it later.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. NicholasLevis
    Member

    .

    I beg you all please not to promote this, although of course I agree with what I said, for the simple and selfish reason that I was, in terms of radio eloquence, horrible. Far too vague, failing to make my best points clearly, repetitive. Carol brought me in as a last minute replacement and I've gotten rusty. I think Sarah Palin on a bender would have done about as well. Half of that talk had to be conducted while I was on the subway* because, um, of a Earthshakingly Important Event preceding it that caused me to be late getting back home (watching the Mets take four hours, rather than the customary three to lose pathetically, albeit within easy booing distance). And just as I was home and got more coherent near the end, the line got cut off.

    Vic, I don't attack your approach or Jim's to demolition theory; especially Kevin Ryan has my respect. I greatly disagree with placing the primary focus on it, which is what people have done in practice since around 2005. Furthermore, most of those who make demolition claims are clueless in the evidence they forefront, and usually mix it all up with the Pentagon hoax, voice-morphing, etc. (Coupling, as you have called it yourself.) They have taken Griffin as their authority on everything, and he's lost much of the discrimination he once practiced. I'm talking about the "mainstream" "truthers" here, not the out-and-out conscious hoax artists we like to bash. For the sake of clarity, I wish I had said it in just so many words.

    The prof who followed had a much better performance. After briefly saying he disagreed with me, he was soon hitting excellent general points about racism and imperialism, while touching on, you guessed it, the Pentagon hole as smoking gun... thus illustrating my argument, had I actually made it in a competent fashion.

    See you guys.


    ( * - but wait, cell phone calls from the subway? Impossible! Dewdney proved this by taking the E train and never once connecting on the ride.) (This is too much of a New Yorker's in-joke, sorry.)

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. NicholasLevis
    Member

    .

    And thank you, Christs4Sale! Much appreciated.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. Victronix
    Member

    Furthermore, most of those who make demolition claims are clueless in the evidence they forefront, and usually mix it all up with the Pentagon hoax, voice-morphing, etc. (Coupling, as you have called it yourself.)

    I don't think we could get people to stop talking about the Pentagon by getting them to stop talking about demolition! The pairing exists because it works to discredit everything, not just demolitions. If demolition wasn't there, that wouldn't stop them from focusing on the Pentagon and using it to discredit.

    You might not think the cases been made, but more and more scientists and researchers and editors do think the case is being has been made, and that's why scientific articles are getting published.

    did you read the response to the NIST report? http://stj911.org/blog/?p=42

    take a look at it, 18 different people worked on that report.

    did you read the journal to the article and the civil engineering Journal? http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCI...

    did you read the article in the environmentalist? http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86...

    have you read any of Kevin Ryan's recent articles? http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_c...

    Dr. Crockett Grabbe said he had an article accepted at the Journal of engineering mechanics responding to a Seffen http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/Seffenrevpub.pdf

    these are extremely powerful, and they represent movement forward.

    Richard Gage's group, in 2 years, now has 3000 members . . . is that nothing?

    I think it's easy to try to blame it all and demolition. But we could say all the same types of things about the peace movement and pick out a particular tactic and try to say that the whole peace movement is failed because of that. I don't think that really gets us anywhere towards making a difference. far better would be to simply create our own group that we think needs to be made. And do it and do the work.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. Arabesque
    Member

    I think it's easy to try to blame it all and demolition. But we could say all the same types of things about the peace movement and pick out a particular tactic and try to say that the whole peace movement is failed because of that. I don't think that really gets us anywhere towards making a difference. far better would be to simply create our own group that we think needs to be made. And do it and do the work.

    I have to agree here, this is a good point. I think the AE911 truth group is a major success story and so are the published papers.

    The strategy is ALWAYS going to mix 9/11 material with hoaxes no matter what we are talking about. The counter-move should be to critique and distance ourselves from hoaxes.

    David Ray Griffin spends an awful amount of time on voice morphing. Interviews on the radio now seem to focus on weaker, and even hoax claims about the Pentagon and phone call "fakery".

    "I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this... ...No, you don't have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that's what the debunkers love, they want to say, that's nonsense and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false." http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/conspir...

    If David Ray Griffin understands this, why is he promoting phone fakery? At the very least, this is extremely bad judgment.

    What I find disturbing is the continual emphasis in radio interviews on this issue as if it's a primary claim of the 9/11 truth movement. http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=21896...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. truthmod
    Administrator

    I haven't listened to Nick's interview yet, but I do think the Big Tenters need a dose of negativity.

    So, DRG has a new book out where he continues to promote no-plane at the Pentagon?

    The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: The Definitive Treatment of 9/11
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&...

    In Chapter 2, Griffin takes up the many developments since 2004 with respect to Flight 77 and the events that occurred at the Pentagon. He shows that Solicitor General Ted Olson's claim to have received phone calls from his wife Barbara on Flight 77 cannot be true: it is self-contradictory (sometimes he claimed she called on a cell phone, and at other times on a seat-back phone), and it has even been abandoned by the FBI in its summary evidence of all phone calls from all the flights submitted at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, which said that no connected call was made by her. These claimed calls from Barbara Olson were the principal "evidence" put forward to substantiate the assertion that the Flight 77 was still in the air and headed toward Washington D.C., and that it was hijacked by Arab Muslims.

    Griffin then presents a detailed analysis of a broad array of physical evidence indicating that the Pentagon was not struck by a Boeing 757: photos of the damage to the outside of the building; lack of suitable debris; lack of video evidence; lack of time-change parts from the planes; no flight data recorder with the correct serial number has ever been produced; lack of a seismic signal of such an impact; the inexplicable C-Ring hole inside the Pentagon; the contradictory eye-witness evidence; the implausibility of terrorists striking the West Wing, farthest away from the offices of the top brass; and the known inability of Hani Hanjour to fly an airliner with the skill required by the claimed 330-degree downward spiral at high speed.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. Diane
    Member

    Viktronix wrote:

    I don't think we could get people to stop talking about the Pentagon by getting them to stop talking about demolition!

    Here's the connection: What we need is to encourage, in both cases, is an attitude that one shouldn't talk publicly about things that one has not researched carefully.

    The majority of people (other than the scientists and engineers) who promote demolition theories are simply not qualified to take a public stand on any relevant controversial scientific issue. The popular intuitive pro-demolition arguments are all flawed or, at best, incomplete.

    If some scientists and engineers in the movement are finally managing to get papers published in scientific journals, fine. But their findings are still controversial at best, and most other people in the 9/11 Truth movement are just not qualified to resolve these issues one way or the other.

    Let qualified scientists and engineers pursue demolition theories if they see a justification for so doing. But their work is not helped by laypeople making faulty pro-demolition arguments.

    The rest of us are best off taking a cautious wait-and-see attitude toward demolition theories. So, the rest of us should not focus on demolition theories but, instead, should focus on things that any literate layperson can verify.

    Such caution would also make activists less vulnerable to Pentagon no-575 claims, etc.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. Diane
    Member

    Nicholas's pessimism is based on the 9/11 Truth movement's emphasis on demolitions and on its tendency to fall for misinfo/disinfo.

    I do think the movement is, albeit slowly, finding its way past these problems. In my experience, lots of 9/11 Truth activists regard Jon Gold's 9/11: Press for Truth as the very best 9/11 Truth introductory video. Even the Loose Change kids (in one of their debates with Mark Roberts on Ron Wieck's Hardfire show) recommended 9/11: Press for Truth above their own work. So, we clearly are seeing at least the beginnings of a return to the 9/11 Truth movement's roots.

    Nicholas, I think you personally could do a lot -- without too much effort -- to help this process along.

    One thing you could do fairly quickly and easily would be to self-publish a book of some of your favorite past essays. You're a good enough writer that I think it could sell very well within the 9/11 Truth movement. And it -- together with a series of speaking engagements to promote it -- would be an excellent way to help call the movement's attention to the issues you think are most important for us to be focusing on.

    Another thing you could do would be to write a well-documented history of the 9/11 Truth movement, from your point of view. Or perhaps you could just help Jon Gold with his forthcoming film on the history of the 9/11 Truth movement. As was pointed out by "loose nuke" in this thread in the Truth Action forum:

    documenting the history of the 9/11 truth movement, imho, may be as important as documenting 9/11.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. JohnA
    Member

    Nicholas did not "attack" demolition in this interview. this is hyperbole.

    please do not turn this into a debate about the veracity of demolition as a theory. Nicholas never challenged that.

    What Nicholas IS challenging (if i may be so bold as to speak for him) is the movement's propensity to EXCLUDE all else - in favor of demolition.

    what we SHOULD be discussing is the veracity of research that is being IGNORED - as a result of a single-minded approach of pushing demolitions - at the cost of all else.

    you MUST understand that there is evidence out there that is LEGALLY ACTIONABLE. there are PEOPLE who can be compelled to testify. there are official government statements that can and SHOULD be legally challenged.

    hell - even the commissioners themselves have publicly claimed that they were both 'stonewalled' and given demonstrably 'false' information.

    i believe that Nicholas shares a sentiment that many other activists in the movement share. demolitions simply does not resonate with the ALL of the public. it has its place. it has captured the imagination of many. AE911Truth is an incredible achievement. but - many of us feel that we cannot hang our hat on that ONE theory. the evidence is gone. the crime scene has been scrubbed. and complicity cannot (at this point) be proven regarding WHO is responsible.

    last night PBS ran yet ANOTHER special on the Kennedy assassination. and we were yet AGAIN treated to a presentation of the magic bullet and physics. i suppose we will still be talking about the magic bullet for the rest of our lives - unless we actually come up with evidence of another gunman - in the flesh.

    demolitions has its place in 9/11 Truth.

    i find it somewhat offensive that those of us who are interested in a broader-based investigation are accused of 'attacking' demolitions.

    9/11 Truth should not be the WTC Demolitions movement - to the exclusion of all else. and its ok to say that. it is not disloyal nor illogical.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Diane wrote:

    Jon Gold's 9/11: Press for Truth

    Huh?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. Diane
    Member

    christs4sale wrote:

    Huh?

    Why the "Huh?" What's your question?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. chrisc
    Member

    I guess the question is why are you describing it as Jon Gold's movie when he isn't listed on the credits?

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0867134/fullcredits

    Posted 16 years ago #
  15. Diane
    Member

    Perhaps I'm mistaken? I was always under the impression that Jon Gold was one of the people involved in producing 9/11: Press for Truth. If indeed that's not the case, thanks for the correction.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  16. Diane
    Member

    Trying to figure out why I've always associated 9/11: Press for Truth with Jon Gold's name, I guess it must be because he promotes that video a lot. He's one of the people who has organized a weekly showing of it in Pennsylvania, according to this page on the 911PFT blog.

    Apparently I'm not the only person under the impression he was involved in producing it. For example, on this page about the New England 9/11 Symposium, clicking "read more" brings up a list of descriptions of participants, including the following:

    Jon Gold - Longtime researcher and activist. Gold was instrumental in the production of 9/11: Press For Truth and has been an advocate for the 9/11 First Responders and the Feal Good Foundation. Gold is involved with ?9/11Truth Tuesdays? at the Wayne Movie Theater in Wayne, PA, which has turned out to be an incredibly successful public outreach venue.

    To Jon Gold, if you're reading this: Were you, indeed, "instrumental in the production of 9/11: Press For Truth"? If so, why aren't you listed in the credits? If not, then you should be aware of the mistaken rumors.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  17. Diane
    Member

    Anyhow, the important point about 9/11: Press for Truth is that its popularity can give us reason to hope that the 9/11 Truth movement is at least starting to return to its roots.

    Do others here not agree?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  18. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Nicholas, I think you personally could do a lot -- without too much effort -- to help this process along.

    One thing you could do fairly quickly and easily would be to self-publish a book of some of your favorite past essays. You're a good enough writer that I think it could sell very well within the 9/11 Truth movement. And it -- together with a series of speaking engagements to promote it -- would be an excellent way to help call the movement's attention to the issues you think are most important for us to be focusing on.

    Another thing you could do would be to write a well-documented history of the 9/11 Truth movement, from your point of view. Or perhaps you could just help Jon Gold with his forthcoming film on the history of the 9/11 Truth movement. As was pointed out by "loose nuke" in this thread in the Truth Action forum:

    Thanks for your faith in me. At the moment, and really for a couple of years, I've been more taken up with immediate matters of survival. If and when my material circumstances should improve beyond that, these are ideas that I agree would be good.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  19. NicholasLevis
    Member

    .

    Jon Gold was one of the presenters at the premiere of 911: Press for Truth in New York last year (?), as he had worked very hard with Kyle Hence and the director to help them make it. He wasn't a filmmaker directly, but has worked for the film as hard as anyone else.

    .

    Posted 16 years ago #
  20. Victronix
    Member

    Yes, using the word 'attack' is hyperbole, I said it out of frustration.

    We do have real scientists doing real research that is being published in real journals. Brushing that aside as not important or meaningful because one presidential assassination exposure effort dozens of years ago failed in court is frustrating on my end too.

    The evidence is not all gone, which is why Steve has been able to analyze it using scientific instruments, evidence from numerous different sources analyzed in different labs and coming up with the same findings. Other evidence is in the videos which can be measured -- as has been -- using science and math concepts.

    The reason that Richard's group is growing is not because it's all hand-waving and mirrors and superficial videos but because when people who have advanced degrees and years of experience in engineering and other sciences see the actual evidence, they get it, and they want to expose the truth.

    I don't think any of us are omniscient so I just don't think we can know that one is right and the other is wrong when they are both paths which expose truths. If one person's goal is the penultimate court case, that's great, they should work on that. That isn't everyone's goal. Truths also occur in other ways. And not all court cases are just rubber stamps through history.

    JFK researchers are not 9/11 researchers. I don't think we can use JFK as the ultimate rubber stamp to every case in the future to expose truths. The torture cases we will see in our lifetimes will use physical evidence -- that doesn't mean they are inherently un-winnable because JFK never was exposed. Vote fraud may someday be exposed and some people continue to work to expose that, but just because science will be used doesn't mean it can never be exposed in a court because JFK wasn't.

    To me, spending our time debating what type of evidence we should use or not is mainly a waste of our time unless we have a strategy that will work to control what type of evidence people can focus on and we feel that can work. I haven't seen that yet.

    Everyone will work on what interests them and it will be an uphill battle to stop that.

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.