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.
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/73244
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/73245
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
http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themse...