Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Reviews of "The Shell Game" (32 posts)

  1. Victronix
    Member

    A good majority of those who get into 9/11 truth via CD are not encouraged to understand that it does not make the case for complicity. Even if we prove that it was a CD, who is implicated? No one specific. In other words, don't prove it was a CD, prove who pulled it off.

    These are good points. Who could have pulled off a CD? Some of the Grand Juries are the closest efforts to people trying to think concretely about who could or should be implicated. They aren't perfect, but they start an outline --

    http://stj911.org/paul/CPFindings_SDCGJCharges.htm...

    It's worth also pointing out that some people believe that CD is the most powerful issue because it goes beyond complicity, unlike most of the other issues, and because the evidence is knowable scientifically, even if there will be difficulty and debate. Also, we no longer are at the point of "proving" CD, we are at the stage of outreaching the points on it that most agree on. So to many people, it does make the case for complicity, although proving who could have pulled it off is not stressed, and should be.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. Arabesque
    Member

    That seems to happen when one is more interested in telling people not to work on something they are inspired by, then simply going off and working on their own issue, what inspires that someone, and seeing if others will join in.

    Great point.

    The NIST report has many gaping holes in it. We don't have to talk about CD to show that the official story as reported by NIST is incomplete and misleading. Kevin Ryan has done this expertly.

    Review of 'A New Standard For Deception: The NIST WTC Report' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/new...

    I got Shell Game today. I'll post a review later.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. chrisc
    Member

    ANYONE MIND IF...

    I repost the parts in this discussion at truth action

    I don't mind, and I doubt if others would since we all post there as well...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. JohnA
    Member

    "That seems to happen when one is more interested in telling people not to work on something they are inspired by, then simply going off and working on their own issue, what inspires that someone, and seeing if others will join in."

    I hardly think that's the case here.

    No one is saying "not to work on something."

    This forum has always been a place to examine strategy. Vic & Arabesque - you both remain quite outspoken critics of various different factions and strategies associated with the 911 Truth movement. CD - like everything else - does not - and SHOULD NOT - get a free pass from scrutiny.

    I have seen the activism of WeAreChange discussed. I have seen 'techniques' for gaining attention discussed. I have seen the disruption of bill Maher's show discussed. i have seen people's 'words' examined (as they should be). i have seen affiliations put under the microscope. i have seen actions debated - and in some cases condemned for the simple reason that they 'resonate' the wrong public message - no matter how sincere and well-intentioned they may be.

    Vic - you have always been front and center in these discussions. and i respect that.

    well - i would ask that you respect that others may simply not agree - in absolute terms - with your conclusions on CD.

    to be perfectly fair - i do get the sense that CD has somehow been converted into a holy-relic of sorts that must not be touched and/or questioned. Good activists like Jon Gold have taken a ridiculous amount of 'heat' for declaring their doubts. I have seen the loyalty of activists questioned simply on the basis that they will not sign a blood-loyalty oath to the theory. I myself endured quite a bit of personal accusations from a group that has now been banned from TruthAction, who post voluminously about how Gold and myself are proven agents of Larry Silverstein. Other groups like WingTV and Les Jamieson became defacto spokesmen for the theory - and i can attest to the fact that it was the final straw that divided NY911Truth (at least as far as i was concerned).

    no one should be afraid or intimidated into stating that it is "a theory." It is simply NOT akin to the theory of evolution, and no amount of redundant declarative statements will elevate it to that level.

    If you read my one and only post on this thread - on the subject of CD (that someone else brought up) - i in no way impugned upon the veracity of the underlying science.

    but - like everything else - the subject is fair game and still open to debate.

    One of the moderators here asked if there was any value in debating it.

    i would say 'yes.' Because - if we create "off limit" theories that must be accepted - without question - we become no different than 'other researchers' who have fractured the movement by created untouchable theories. and we know who THEY are.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. chrisc
    Member

    I agree virtually all of what Nick and John are saying about tactics etc, but I still have no doubt what so ever that the building were blown up.

    JohnA said:

    I am agnostic; I may be proven wrong on this. Perhaps renegades will appear from within the NIST panel. Maybe someone brings a few million dollars into it and finances an MIT study that concludes it was demolition.

    I think these things would help convince more people, whether they would make the crucial difference, I don't know.

    What I do know is that they are not needed to convince me, or Vic -- could it be the the difference here is background -- is this what an Architectural degree does for one? I dunno.

    I think that perhaps the big bang a better analogy than evolution... but that's another debate...

    Regarding the abuse that Jon and people have had over their position on CD -- I think this is totally unacceptable.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. JohnA
    Member

    umm.... that quote you attributed to me was Nick's. my writings usually a little tighter.

    so - we all agree to disagree - which is the best we can hope for in this situation. but - it is also the one thing that differentiates this dialogue from the ongoing flame wars and disruptions taking place everywhere else you look in this movement.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. chrisc
    Member

    that quote you attributed to me was Nick's.

    Oops, sorry about that :-/

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.