Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Latest Hoax Article: Fetzer & Barrett Promote TV Fakery (31 posts)

  1. Victronix
    Member

    This seems to be a piece to promote Fetzer's upcoming conference with Wood & Reynolds, etc., an attempt to generate hype around the idea that anything humanly or physically possible on 9/11 must have happened or has to now be "taken seriously."

    Could any conference be worth injecting more disinfo into the movement? Or is it just an excuse to do more of it?


    July 28, 2007 at 09:11:23

    Mounting Evidence of 9/11 Video Fakery: New proof of media duplicity, Scholars claim

    by James Fetzer

    New studies of media coverage of the attacks on the Twin Towers have raised serious questions about the integrity of television broadcasts over CNN, CBS and FOX NEWS, according to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a non-partisan society of students, experts, and scholars. “I used to think that the very idea of faking ‘live’ broadcasts was at least faintly absurd,” observed James Fetzer, the society’s founder. “But it turns out that there is a delay between an event’s actual occurrence and the broadcasting of footage of that same event, which creates the opportunity for image manipulation.”

    ........

    Kevin Barrett, the founder of MUJCA and a member of Scholars, reports he is troubled by these new studies. “I guess I’ll have to take this possibility more seriously now,” Barrett said. “In the past, I have assumed video fakery was far-fetched and that anyone who endorsed it was probably a crackpot! Now I’m not so sure.”

    ........

    Ace Baker mentions a group long convinced of video fakery, including Gerard Holmgren, Rosalee Grable, StillDiggin, Killtown, and others, who have been frustrated their arguments have not been taken seriously. “For that reason, I’m including this subject in a conference on ‘The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What’s Controversial, What’s Not,’ which will be held in Madison on August 3-5, 2007 (911scholars.org),” Fetzer said. “We are going do our best to get to the bottom of this. Truth about 9/11 is stranger than fiction.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_fe_0...


    The conference is here -

    http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_con...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. truthmod
    Administrator

    Oh man, I wish I could attend this. What's up with Kevin Barrett? I don't believe he's just that naive.

    KEVIN BARRETT, Ph.D., the leading 9/11 activist in the world today, is the author of TRUTH JIHAD, co-editor of 9/11 AND AMERICAN EMPIRE, and the founder of MUJCA-NET, a society that brings together Christians, Muslims, and Jews in pursuit of the truth about 9/11. He will present an overview about political aspects of 9/11 activism.

    By the way, has David Ray Griffin ever really taken a stand on disinformation, or does he just try to ignore it?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. Victronix
    Member

    I don't believe he's just that naive.

    When the scholars group was convinced to hand over the original website to a "neutral" party, everyone insisted that Barrett would be that person. I was one of the few who fought the whole thing and said we should take the domain away completely. Barrett told the group in an email that he would try to rein in some of the more extreme stuff on the website in the next few months. The link to Siegel's site was still up on there as late as May and was taken down sometime after that. Barrett's radio shows mix in sincere people with people like Reynolds and von Kleist, UFO-ologist Webre (alien time travel technology is in the hands of certain governments, and much more). And meanwhile, Fetzer interviews all the nonsense advocates, week after week.

    18 June 2007 Interview: Alfred Webre will be interviewed by Kevin Barrett on "The Dynamic Duo"

    10 July 2007 Interview: Morgan Reynolds and Rick Ratjer will be interviewed by Kevin Barrett on "9/11 and Empire"

    27 July 2007 Interview: Jerry Leaphart will be interviewed by Kevin Barrett on "9/11 and Empire"

    [Leaphart is the lawyer - disbarred? I heard that somewhere - who was used to make the Scholars group think that Fetzer was going sue everyone, later he helped Wood and Reynolds send in hoax Requests for Correction to NIST]

    31 July 2007 Interview: Dave von Kleist will be the guest of Kevin Barrett on "9/11 and Empire Radio" 9-11 PM/CT on WTPRN: http://wtprn.com http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_con...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. truthmover
    Administrator

    That quote from Barret is just too much

    In the past, I have assumed video fakery was far-fetched and that anyone who endorsed it was probably a crackpot! Now I’m not so sure.”

    What a load of crap! Can you just imagine how much mail Barrett has received encouraging him to be more critical of this research. Or maybe we could just expect that he would be paying attention to the movement and would have discovered on his own effective refutations of the 'tv fakery' hypothesis. I've looked at a fair amount of their evidence, and NO, it's not remotely compelling. And I can't imagine it would be more compelling to someone more educated than myself. So what's going on here?

    These inexplicable conversions are the worst kind of intellectual betrayal. Barrett may yet distance himself from all of this, but why is he promoting it now, at such a critical moment for the movement? Crap!

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. Victronix
    Member

    So what's going on here?

    Middle management.

    I tried to post some info to blogger exposing the facts of the conferene, but they won't post it.

    More middle management.

    What you don't know won't hurt you, right! I guess I'll finish my essay on patriotsquestion and get it posted.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. DBLS
    Inactive

    I thought Barrett was better than this, but regardless he's still stuck by Fetzer and the disinfo artists through think and thin, which is very strange frankly.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. Arabesque
    Member

    My own thoughts

    First of all, I don't want to accuse anyone of anything.

    Having said that, there was a time when Dr. Fetzer gave the "appearance" of being interested in the cause of 9/11 truth. I remember this time quite clearly although I always had my suspicions about him and his trustworthiness. One of the biggest signs to me was Jim Hoffman's critiques of Mr. Fetzer, and also the fact that Jim Hoffman did not join ST911.

    Dr. Barrett has done good things for 9/11 truth, but his (apparently close) association with Mr. "Poison Pill" Fetzer is unacceptable. His lukewarm support for "DEW" is extremely questionable. His support for TV fakery has crossed the line.

    It's getting time to call him on this behavior, or am I out of line here?

    Of 9/11 researchers, who gets the most air-time. Is it the careful and reliable Dr. Jones? Is the people who are the most careful and credible in their claims? No. It is certain people who are not credible who get the most airtime. And that's for a reason.

    Create your opposition is how you control your opposition. Just look at the Left Gatekeepers for evidence of that.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. truthmover
    Administrator

    Not out of line

    This is certainly a place where you are welcome to speak candidly about accountability. We are trying to cover the truth of the movement in here.

    Back to some really old stuff.

    We have a research community that should look down every avenue in exploring what happened. Good science includes a lot of dead ends, and dis-proven hypotheses. That is not a very public realm, as the general public is not at first interested in the fine details of the issue. However, much of our progress is due to this community of people.

    We also have a promotional community. Those who take that which the researchers have provided, and prioritize and summarize the information for public attention. The parameters of the activity are very different. Specifically, in prioritizing that which should be promoted, we make decisions about which evidence is best founded.

    Now, if you get these roles confused or mixed up together, problems emerge. You get researchers promoting themselves with obvious bias, and you get promoters pushing poorly founded evidence. Honestly, Barrett seems a bit confused. And the people he is promoting seem to be equally confused.

    All good infiltrators start out by doing something reputable. Eric Williams set himself up by writing a series of books. He didn't drop the book on Holocaust denial until just three weeks before the Arizona conference he was coordinating. Kevin Barrett gave Sean Hannity the best tongue lashing the movement has seen. He's a member of MUJCA. Being critical of him is a bit unPC in the movement for the exact reason that he has established himself to some degree. But as we've seen, too much of this silent trust may be a recipe for disaster.

    So we are openly wondering what this guy's priorities really are. Its fair to say that they are in question. Barrett himself seems to be sitting uncomfortably on the fence about all this. From a positive standpoint, we could write him yet more appeals to reason, but what we have seen recently does not give us cause for optimism.

    And, no, I'm not buying the line about any good scientist being open to all hypotheses. While that's true, as stated above, it doesn't take long to get to the bottom of all this. We all did our homework. We were good scientists and found their evidence wanting and conclusions unjustified. Did Barrett find something different?

    Crap!

    Posted 17 years ago #
  9. Victronix
    Member

    Here's what Kevin Barrett has posted on 911blogger most recently -

    big day for Wisconsin 9/11 truth radio tomorrow

    Two breakthrough radio shows tomorrow, Monday, July 30th!

    12 noon, WORT 89.9 FM Madison, http://www.wort-fm.org/

    Norm Stockwell will have Dave Von Kleist on his Public Affair show. Dave Von Kleist is the director of In Plane Site and the brand-new 9/11 Ripple Effect. He will be presenting at the Science of 9/11 conference in Madison August 3rd-5th: http://twilightpines.com/index.php?option=com_cont...

    Call in at 608-256-2001 to join the conversation with Norm and Dave. Norm is the most influential political/news person at WORT and he's a great guy--if WORT's 9/11 coverage hasn't been what it should be, that isn't Norm's fault. Some of the other folks at WORT are the problem. Let's give Norm and WORT lots of positive feedback for this. http://911blogger.com/node/10300

    Posted 17 years ago #
  10. imgstacke
    Member

    Just pointing out an observation -

    Fox News gave a fair amount of airtime to Fetzer and Barrett. There seems to be a pattern as Fox News is the only MSM organization that pays attention to the 9/11 issue, regardless of their obvious bias.

    One other individual that I am aware of did get some airtime at Fox, this was Bob Bowman. Has he spoken about his position concerning DEW and other disinfo?

    The only reason this is relevant is he is the only one that I am aware of that has any authority when it comes to claims about US Weapon capabilities as he was formally in the Carter/Reagan Administrations involved with the SDI/Starwars programs.

    I am not making accusations but observations and asking what I feel are legitimate questions. I have been out of it since January, so I do not know if Bowman has made his position clear.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  11. Victronix
    Member

    Eric to the rescue, again.

    Rebuttal of Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" Analysis 29 July 2007 by Eric Salter

    http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/Fox5analysis...

    "Once again, I felt oblidged to revisit this issue and conduct this analysis, since this analysis is outside the expertise of other 9/11 researchers I know who are working in this area. Unfortunately it was a royal waste of time, delivering totally predictable results. The lack of a logical scenario for the no-plane theory should be enough to invalidate it, but many people don't think logically and, sadly, propaganda like this still has to be rebutted, as the unwary will be fooled by it's veneer of authenticity."

    Posted 17 years ago #
  12. Victronix
    Member

    Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:05:14 -0400 From: "Total Information" totalinfo&#... Subject: [911truthalliance] Live coverage of 9/11 science conference this weekend

    Live coverage of 9/11 science conference this weekend http://www.revereradio.net/

    http://metro.phaylon.com:8101/listen.m3u

    REVERE RADIO NETWORK will feature live coverage this weekend of a conference put on by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The conference is called "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not?" Live coverage will be featured from 10am ET to 12midnite Saturday and 10am ET to 2pm Sunday.

    LISTEN LIVE HERE FULL CONFERENCE SCHEDULE (TIMES CDT) < http://www.total411.info/2007/07/upcoming-conferen... >

    Posted 17 years ago #
  13. chompers
    Member

    I think Barrett is possibly that naive. If you have ever spent some time with him, he is earnest and appears to expect others to be the same. Fetzer et al are clearly taking advantage of this. Barrett needs a kick in the pants to see this.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  14. truthmover
    Administrator

    Welcome chompers

    Your point is well taken, but I can only assume that earnest people have told him a great deal about his associates and their hypotheses. So how far do we extend the shield of innocence? Or how do we provide that kick in the pants? And is it worth our time trying to 'save' Kevin Barrett? Difficult questions. Any recommendations?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  15. Victronix
    Member

    I think Barrett is possibly that naive.

    It probably feels better to think that, and possibility it's true - we don't know. But the evidence doesn't seem to suggest it's true. From what I've seen he appears to go out of his way to protect those who are making the ad hominem attacks, for example, in writing, such as Reynolds and Wood, who he's had on his show over and over, and Fetzer, his "partner," who openly calls people "morons," etc., and is no longer even allowed to post on blogger.

    Here's an interesting example of what KB does below, in excerpts from a Dynamic Duo show (my bold).

    Here's a great line from that that KB says -

    . . . . .

    "I don't know if it's true or not, but you're putting forth a reasoned argument, you're pointing at evidence."

    . . . . .

    Gosh, might as well promote it then, since it "points at" some kind of "evidence"!

    But what evidence? Apparently what the evidence is means nothing. Note that he decisively says that MR is making a "reasoned argument." What reason is there in his argument? It all makes no sense, except for the fact that reality, evidence, reason, logic and consequently truth, don't actually mean anything at all.

    No sane person in 2007 would be saying that we still need to "weigh" the evidence in the case of "no Big Boeings" hit the WTC. If it hasn't been done by now by KB, it isn't ever going to be.

    And this is almost exactly the same as Fetzer.

    The only theory Fetzer is willing to discard is whatever Steven Jones says, but every other theory imaginable - nukes, space beams, etc. - is endlessly in need to "analysis" and constant promotion.

    Transcript: The Dynamic Duo with Kevin Barrett

    Final Revision 26 February 2007

    Participants

    KB = Dr. Kevin Barrett (Host)

    MR = Prof. Morgan Reynolds

    http://www.veronicachapman.com/st911/070219_transc...

    KB: Oh yea … I've made this point many times. There are - there are folks in the 9/11 Truth Movement who – who really have a har- strong aversion to people like you coming out and – and suggesting that there may have been these high-tech, exotic, weapons being used - because they're afraid that people are gonna call them tin-foil-hat-wearers, as they go about doing their 9/11 Truth work. But what I always tell these people is: "Look, if you were a covert operations professional, with a lot of means at your disposal, wouldn't you do this in such a way that anyone who figured it out, and told the truth, would sound crazy?"

    MR: Right!

    KB: So you gotta keep that in mind, as a possibility. And I tell people "Let's not write people like Morgan Reynolds off right away. We need to take a look at what you're saying, and weigh it, and think about it, and not - not spread stupid rumours – and …

    . . . .

    MR: . . . You probably are familiar with a Fox News video, back on September 10th, you might have seen it - it's about a three and a half minute clip? And the anchor asked me about – " Aren't you one of those guys who said there was no plane?". And I say "Yes I am. No plane went into the South Tower. And I can prove it". And he says "Well, that means you're accusing the mass media of being complicit! ". And I said "Well, good for you! Yes, I am!".

    . . . .

    KB: …But, Morgan, you know the thing is that once you've proved 'controlled demolition', or – you know – 'intentional demolition', then you no longer have Arab-Muslim hijackers meaningfully involved in this. Why? Because there's no way that they're gonna rely on these alleged 'suicide hijackers' to make sure that they create the smash – the smash up that they can blame the demolition on. They're gonna make sure that they – you know – do something else to create a plane crash. Or the illusion of a plane crash, in your case. It doesn't matter really, because the point is that once you got the Towers …

    MR: Oh … it matters!

    . . . .

    KB: Well, let me – let me explain partly why Morgan. One is that I've looked at your stuff on this and, contrary to all – you know - a whole lot of people telling me "Oh! No! That's crazy! Don't go there! Don't got there!" – well, I've gone a little ways and …

    MR: Um-hum [considering]

    KB: … I don't think it's crazy. I don't know if it's true or not, but you're putting forth a reasoned argument, you're pointing at evidence.

    MR: Right!

    KB: … and I think you should have the right to do that. So I think people running around and calling you names should stop – I also think you shouldn't call people names either, by the way, but that's another topic …

    MR: Yea … well … [laughs]. But [unintelligible] have for that, actually there are very few. My 'competitor', Steven Jones, in every talk, it seems like every other paragraph reverts to ad hominem attacks, but I gather he's not talking about me, because I can only remember saying – after I'd earned my spurs, in an article co-authored with Judy Wood, you know, we'd gone through about nine things - and I finally said "How retarded is that?"

    . . . .

    KB: Yes. Lots of people argue in academia. Like I've – you know - I haven't published that many academic articles but, as I understand it, you're not supposed to say "Well how retarded is that?" – you know - you're supposed to kind of like 'give that impression', without coming out and saying it directly.

    MR: Well, I understand the negative side of that, but I'm not taking it back. It's true …

    Posted 17 years ago #
  16. JV
    Member

    I've often wondered why the idea so labeled "TV Fakery" would cause such controversy. Should it be the viewpoint of the 9/11 truth movement that television is to be believed?

    Now I'm not saying the live video coverage of that day proves anything, quite the opposite. It seems logical to me that if the live TV coverage of 9/11 was manipulated then it should be thrown out as evidence of anything except a coverup.

    Personally I have always been annoyed with people that toss out the phrase "we all saw the planes hit the towers". Most often I've heard this as a response to controlled demolition arguments. Why would that annoy me? Because i watched the destruction of the towers without the aid of a television, that is to say with an unobstructed view using my eyes. So whenever people say that I always remind them that "we all saw..." is only true if "on TV" is added at the end.

    I also appreciate the point above about the difference between 'research' and what is established enough to be used for deprogramming the public.

    Just my 2 cents of input, are we (9/11 truthers) meant to accept television broadcasts at face value?

    Posted 17 years ago #
  17. truthmover
    Administrator

    Good point, but...

    You are right that we should not trust the mainstream media for all its bias. But this issue here is not generally whether we trust the TV or not. The issue is whether or not there is sound evidence backing up claims of 'tv fakery'. No one is suggesting that it's not technically possible for someone to have tampered with the video. But we have no cause to suggest that it was unless there is some convincing evidence.

    The people pushing this stuff do a good job acting like they have good evidence. But in fact, it has been reviewed over and over again by rational thinkers who have found nothing convincing. And the significance of thousands of people seeing the planes in person, just as you saw the towers fall, can not be ignored. People might not be so good at describing the planes, but they'd know if they saw and heard them.

    Anyway, yes, let's all remain open and skeptical. But one thing you may be missing is that the promoters of 'tv fakery' are also those who actively attack others in the movement for not accepting their claims. We were open to them, found them to be less that scientific, and then openly hostile in defending their claims. They are the one's creating controversy, and in some cases we have strong reason to suspect that this is intentional.

    We do not support the promotion of any hypothesis that has been refuted by all our most thoughtful and educated peers in the movement. When someone like Kevin Barrett, a well educated person, suddenly decides he supports further consideration of these refuted hypotheses, we are all very concerned about why.

    But we're not telling people to ignore them. See for yourself.

    http://911researchers.com/

    Posted 17 years ago #
  18. Victronix
    Member

    I hope you realized however that the movie 9-11 Ripple Effect is not "about" the pod and flash, but has been designed for the revelation of 9/11 truth to the uninformed masses, and may very well be the best film of its kind produced to date. Submitted by Robert Rice on Sat, 06/16/2007 - 4:54pm

    I actually don't have a bias against the pod theory, but thanks for asking. . . . I like "In Plane Site", I especially like the fact that Von Kleist includes original OKC news brodcasts on the DVD. Submitted by Reprehensor on Sat, 06/16/2007 - 4:59pm

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/9373?page=1

    It concerns me that in 2007 an editor of a high ranking site considers it a "bias" to refute baseless claims and likes a film that has been rejected by the vast majority of thinking people in the movement . . .

    Posted 17 years ago #
  19. truthmod
    Administrator

    Mike Ruppert warned us: "the 9/11 movement has been “heavily, heavily infiltrated … by government disinformation operatives."

    David Ray Griffin shouldn't be dismissing the significance of disinfo, he should be writing a book about it (and challenging his own assumptions about the Pentagon).

    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/033006_c...

    Despite that groundswell of interest, Ruppert said he’s trying to distance himself from the 9/11 movement. The one subject he doesn’t tackle is physical evidence—the why and how of the Towers’ collapse, the strangeness surrounding the destruction at the Pentagon and the debris left behind by Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. This is the one area where the 9/11 movement is focusing most of its energies now, he says, and physical evidence arguments are “absolute minefields when you get into the legal arena,” with discussions devolving into a competition between whichever side can provide the most experts.

    The greater danger, according to Ruppert, is that the 9/11 movement has been “heavily, heavily infiltrated … by government disinformation operatives” who have put proverbial “poison pills” into its debates.

    Sounds paranoid, right? Not really. In the 1960s and 1970s, federal programs like COINTELPRO used undercover operatives to infiltrate the anti-war movement and discredit it, and the practice apparently continues today. Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union released data confirming that the government has been spying on anti-war groups since the conflict in Iraq began in 2003.

    Griffin, on the other hand, is skeptical of talk about disinformation and infiltrators.

    “I really haven’t had any strong suspicions about anybody,” he said. “Even if there is some truth to it, I don’t think it’s a very important concern.”

    Some of the more outlandish theories—like French writer Thierry Meyssan’s claim that a cruise missile, not an airplane, hit the Pentagon—are only diluting the waters, Ruppert said. There are other theories, too: that there were no planes at all, only holographic projections of planes (used in conjunction with explosives planted by some shadowy group); or that one of the planes that hit the WTC had some sort of anomalous “pod” attached to it that caused extra damage. But this is all “bullshit,” Ruppert said, and is either intentional disinformation or sheer stupidity.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  20. truthmover
    Administrator

    Good posting!

     Out last three posts here are an awesome response to the lure of the 'big tent.'
    

    And thanks JV for raising the issue in a constructive way. We write all this certainly not simply to refute your personal opinion, but to address the issue in general. We hope that our comments are helpful to you in some way.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  21. Arabesque
    Member

    "David Ray Griffin shouldn't be dismissing the significance of disinfo, he should be writing a book about it (and challenging his own assumptions about the Pentagon)."

    David Ray Griffin has written books about disinformation.

    The 9/11 official story is disinformation, and his books (especially Omissions and Distortions/Debunking 9/11 Debunking) are fantastic exposes of the 9/11 "official story" disinformation.

    As Fetzer says, disinformation is like a "lie", and Griffin calls the 9/11 commission report a "571 page lie."
    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523...

    These EXACT same tactics of disinformation are being used to invent false explanations for what happened on 9/11.

    The 9/11 official story is disinformation, and so are the absurd theories that pretend to explain what happened. I just wish David Ray Griffin would pay more attention to the misinformation surrounding alternative explanations for what happened on 9/11.

    Any way to get him to read my paper on disinformation? http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-disin...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  22. truthmover
    Administrator

    David Ray Griffin shouldn't be dismissing the significance of disinfo, he should be writing a book about it (and challenging his own assumptions about the Pentagon).


    I just wish David Ray Griffin would pay more attention to the misinformation surrounding alternative explanations for what happened on 9/11.

    I think you guys are saying very much the same thing. We are familiar with Griffin's contribution to the examination of official disinformation. But as you suggest, he has not taken a position on mis/disinformation within the movement. Now I have always assumed that was because he wanted to maintain an air of academic distance from the movement. Very much like Paul Thompson. An observer and not a participant. More historian than activist.

    Its fair to note how subjective our inner-movement difference can appear from the outside. It can be valuable not to take sides, when things are always in flux. He probably doesn't know who to trust. And that's fair. Unfortunately I think he's heard it all from every side, and that it may be very difficult to influence his path. But I could be wrong. Either way, if you can contact him, his response will be informative.

    You will certainly be representing many others in your expression of these concerns.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  23. Victronix
    Member

    I just wish David Ray Griffin would pay more attention to the misinformation surrounding alternative explanations for what happened on 9/11.

    We've tried, believe me. Lots of frustrating emails. One time I emailed him about the fact that he was referencing an essay that suggests that no planes hit the WTC and he said that just because he was linking to it didn't mean he supported the claim.

    It's surprising how someone can be logical in one area, and so unable to see the whole picture in another area.

    There's also the possibility of a lot of management by someone he respects. I just don't know because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But one thing I recommend is looking up his former books and debates and issues, to give a framework for a thinking process -

    http://books.google.com/books?q=david+ray+griffin+...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  24. JV
    Member

    Yes, I do appreciate hearing thoughtful responses. Most people don't have much in depth to say about the topics discussed on this forum.

    I guess I'm more cynical about TV. Generally, I consider it to be intentionally poisoned information that has to be confirmed through other sources.

    I also wouldn't use the phrase "thousands of witnesses" until it can be shown. I consider that meme to be a unverified. There were witnesses to the collapse of the towers. There were witnesses to the explosions. But I've only met one person that saw one of 'the' airplanes. It depends on which specific event we're talking about of course. i was really quite surprised the day it happened that I saw literally no one (besides my friend & myself) up on the roofs of their buildings. My impression has always been that even the vast majority of people on lower Manhattan saw it "on TV". I didn't even hear about it (cough, on TV) & go up to the roof until after both towers were on fire.

    But about the whole disinfo thing & how to deal with it... Maybe we need to emphasize the requirement of discernment, or thinking for yourself. The "inside job" slogan is starting to age, how about "9/11 Truth - Think for Yourself" ? Most truthers focus on pushing one set of evidence or another. It could also be good to start adding 'how to evaluate' type of literature to outreach materials. Not just this-person-is-bad type of info, but more how to judge the quality of the information and evidence.

    Don't worry about offending me, I grew a thick online skin in 2003 trying to get 9/11 Truth mentioned (in any positive way) on nyc.indymedia.org. Need I say more? I even volunteered there to see what was going on. That's yet one more organization that is definitely controlled by a dominant personality. And if I don't post for a while it just means my part-time job is demanding more time...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  25. Victronix
    Member

    But I've only met one person that saw one of 'the' airplanes.

    The problem with this whole line of reasoning -- needing to prove basic aspects of everyday realities and fairly certain realities about a tragic and criminal event -- leads into the realm of:

    "Am I really sitting at a desk? How do I prove I'm really here in this room? When I go to work, are others really there, or is my work a fake workplace? Was that bridge in Minneapolis actually there? How does anyone prove it was there in the first place?"

    Etc.

    And life becomes pretty difficult to manage when put in these terms . . .

    nyc.indymedia.org

    I hope you weren't one of the ones hammering them with the no-planes at the WTC claims so hard that they completely shut down to any questioning of 9/11 at all, and became isolated from the our efforts. I agree they seemed controlled by a personality or two, but they could easily refer to the "no planes" and the "Jews did it" claims to justify how nutty we were, and arguing against that was an uphill battle, impossible in the end.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.