Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Controlled Demolition: One element of 9/11 truth (4 posts)

  1. truthmover
    Administrator

    When I first became engaged in 9/11 truth, I didn't give the CD research much credence. My first video was "The Truth and Lies of 9/11". My first book was "The New Pearl Harbor". Both make it quite clear than the problems with the official story are diverse in nature. And Ruppert consciously steers clear of the physical evidence, setting out the basic outlines of our probable cause to suspect government complicity utilizing only documentary evidence.

    In the last year or so, CD has come to prominence in the movement, as reputable scientists have come forward to question the means of collapse. Despite the bias of coverage, every major study of the collapse has actually bolstered the movements assertions.

    The NIST report is a perfect example. They generated three primary results based on a range of conditions. The first was best case, with the plane going slower, having less fuel, and causing less structural damage to the towers. The second was the most likely scenario based on the evidence present. And the third was a worst case scenario, with the plane have all its fuel, going really fast, and causing a great deal more damage to the towers than likely occurred.

    The towers did not suffer damage capable of causing collapse in any but the third scenario!!! The conclusion of the report did not place more weight on the third scenario, except in that it corresponded to observed events. And yet the media, industry pundits, and mainstream society, spun the conclusion to suggest that it validated the official story. Once again, the primary conclusion of the NIST report is that under the most likely conditions present, that the impact of the planes would NOT have caused the building to collapse.

    That was the point at which I was sold on CD. And yet, to my surprise, and frustration, it has seemed that many in the movement didn't entirely separate the spin from the science. We don't need to debunk the NIST report. It supports our position. We only need to counter the misinfomative spin that seeks to mischaracterize the conclusions of the report.

    At this point, with wtc7.net, stj911.com, and ae911truth.org, etc... CD research has become a prominent, and very compelling part of the information that we promote suggesting some degree of government complicity. As this research engages the natural common sense of the viewer in their examination of photographic and video evidence, it serves as a strong psychological bridge for many of those we hope to reach.

    However, another large group of those we encounter in our community, are far more convinced of complicity upon examining mainstream documentation, like that you would find in "The Terror Timeline." This is an important demographic for the movement. Here we find those who simply want answers, and those among other progressive causes who are beginning to recognize the Truth Movement principle that we all share an investment in informed consent.

    Basically our approach is to try to encourage anyone to be more skeptical, regardless of their understanding or ideology. If they appear more mainstream or conservative we just make the strong assertion that the Commission Report has been proven to be biased and inaccurate, and that we should all want to know what really happened. If they appear to be more skeptical, we get more specific, and often get to talking about CD, as this is a familiar subject to many. We try to encourage their interest in other concerns as well.

    Unfortunately I have heard many argue, starting with Victor Thorne of WingTV back in '05, that CD is the keystone of 9/11 truth. Recently someone relatively prominent among the reputable research community made a similar claim. I don't believe that this is a responsible assertion. For many people whom we hope to reach, this is simply not the case. Means, motive, and opportunity regarding the attacks can not be adequately established with only this field of research. Its engaging. Its an essential element of our promotional effort. The data overwhelmingly suggests CD, which is a huge conclusion for the movement. But however well established the theory, it remains one element in a bigger picture.

    TruthMove has had a strategic concern about overly emphasizing the lines of inquiry used most prominently by the MSM to marginalize the movement. Yet we certainly stand behind our representation and respect for this field of research, and those who promote it. I suppose this all boils down to a 'no smoking gun' argument. The case for complicity is a collective one, and we should not be putting too many of our eggs in one basket.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. Victronix
    Member

    But however well established the theory, it remains one element in a bigger picture.

    I definately agree that different people have different comfort zones with evidence and should never be forced into more than they can handle. And no organizations should feel like they are or aren't giving enough credence to CD - if we all went one way it would only take one swipe to knock us all out.

    But CD is actually significantly different than virtually all other areas in that literally the only way it could happen is with insider preparation and intent, whereas almost everything else can get watered down to complicity when you examine it in enough ways. Honegger's early stories try to water down the war games, even as she herself was passing along that info from wherever she got it (her "asset") - that the terrorists were 'piggybacking' the attack on a date they knew would have all these war games going on.

    Historically the demolitions have been mixed with the worst hoaxes and worst spokespeople and there may be a reason for that. Sometimes an advocate is so distasteful that people will write-off that person's claims automatically. Thorn and Lisa G went to GZ to scream at people to discredit us. At the DC truth Convergence Thorn and Lisa G unfurled a banner about demolition with almost no one in attendance, and then attacked photographer Jan Hoyer as 'censoring' them for not including it in her album. Any reason to attack other researchers and slam demolition down their throat at the same time was done. Where are they now? Disappeared, right after Ruppert did.

    I've seen a number of interesting arguments which can explain away almost all the other points into complicity, at best. It's a good exercise to try, looking at the various points and see how each one of them can be watered down. Demolition cannot be. That may be a reason that it can be considered a so-called "keystone," but unfortunately that idea can also be used to pressure or attack people, esp by the worst disinfo personalities. Just ignore it. We are all at our best when we pursue what is most fascinating for each of us personally.

    One way to approach leaders who advocate demolition alone as the keystone is to say just that - "Wouldn't you agree that we should each pursue what is most fascinating for us personally, rather than just one topic?"

    The whole context is necessary.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. truthmover
    Administrator

    Good point

    This reminds me of myself after about 9 months of 9/11 reading and investigation. Just before I became intellectually committed to 9/11 as an inside job, having the rough time at this many of us had, I went through a highly skeptical period in which I tried to very hard to look for any other explanation. Its not that I was trying to hold onto my past view, but that I wasn't going to commit without feeling satisfied that I had considered all the options.

    The watering down of the 'wargames' is actually my favorite example. I had the thought very early on that someone might claim that the hijackers utilized foreknowledge of the training exercises in order to confuse our military response. But that's certainly not the official story.

    Truthmod and I have had some speculative conversations about the possibility that there is a second official story for those with security clearance. What, for instance, is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing behind closed doors? Probably not the truth. Maybe there was an insiders 'official' story circulated in which the terrorists had this foreknowledge, but that it would too greatly compromise national security to admit that national security had been so effectively compromised.

    None of these 'official' stories change the fact that Dick Cheney had simultaneous command over the exercises and military response that day, and therefore should rightly have a few questions to answer on the record. But as you suggest, its easy to spin.

    I see your point about how CD is hard to spin. Once again, I just want to avoid the endless hunt for a 'smoking gun' we no longer need. CD research has advanced to the point that its most valid hypotheses regarding collapse are simply logical. While I am excited to see what comes of present research, I need no more convincing that the buildings were demolished. Having strong reason to suspect that it was an inside job for so many other reasons, the demolition of the towers appears integral to the psychological component of the operation. Once again, an essential piece of the puzzle.

    CD reveals little about the motive for the crime, other than insurance fraud, and very roughly indicates who might be responsible. Of course it certainly raises these questions. But it takes other data to attempt to answer them. Am I missing something? I get the sense that this is one reason why the MSM had decided to highlight CD in attacking us. Its an area of 9/11 truth than can be discussed without touching on history or context. So maybe CD has a different kind of spin problem.

    While I agree that researchers will and should stick to what fascinates them, I think the promotional concerns of the movement demand that your final statement be commonly acknowledged. As you suggest, people will gravitate toward what they find compelling. It if for this very reason that we should each be attempting to place these specific interests in the context of a collective case for the truth. At the very least, this should be reflected in our links to related projects. The links page at stj911.com provides a positive example. ;)

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. truthmod
    Administrator

    If someone is really dedicated to dismissing 9/11 truth, they might even be able to come up with a complicity/negligence argument for controlled demolition. For example, that Saudi or other middle-eastern interests owned or infiltrated a US security/engineering/architecture firm and were able to plant the bombs.

    I still think the most damning evidence is in the lies, omissions, and cover-ups by the government and media.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.