by proldic » Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:54 pm
So what % <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>are</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> the the no-planers within those that believe in MIHOP, for lack of a better term, within the current 9/11-was-a-conspiracy crowd? <br><br>Maybe 75%?<br><br>If so, shouldn't we be <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>damned sure</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> our case is presentable to a jury and our evidence is airtight and convincing? Shouldn't we try as much as possible to put ourselves in to the minds of the jury members -- the masses of the American public, especially the middle-and-upper class white college graduates who seem to have some influence on the actions of the PTB -- and try to base a case around that?<br><br>Shouldn't we be trying to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>win</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> this case? Or are we just going to flaunt our "stupid sheeple" conspiracy badges and feel good about ourselves? <br><br>Tactically, you people can't just continue to dismiss the critics as "stupid sheeple" when they have Scientific American National Geographic and NIST behind them, no matter how much we may pull out our hair about the fact that they're not conclusive, or the man. <br><br>Face it-- they're going to dominate the field wherever they can. and it's this part of the case that they can. Maybe you ought to stop wasting your time arguing here, and instead go out and try to organize a significant faction of scientists and science majors and doctors with your "evidence". <br><br>If you can't do it, you got no case for today's trial. <br><br>Period. <br><br>Impossible?<br><br>Bullshit! The anti-nuclear movement did it. They fought the scientific "consensus" (which never existed anyway really) and "won" (to the degree that was possible at the time). They got enough of a large number of scientists to fight for them in front of the NRC and in the media that they rose from being dismissed as kooky soccer moms to suddenly taken as a threat by the industry (plenty of doc to back that up btw). <br><br>They changed the aggressive nature of the industry, and put an psycho-economic brake on the construction of new plants that's lasted until today. Not saying their story is perfect mind you, just an example of how to do it. If it can be done.<br><br>That's because they have a sound case that can convince a large-enogh number of credible scientists, epidimiologists, and physicians. <br><br>If you were actually to go out and do that, I think you'd find that there is so much uncertainty in the 9/11 physical evidence question, so much of a mixed bag, so much tainting and destruction of evidence, so much control of the evidence and crime scenes by the accused parties, that they'll tell you that there's <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>no way</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> they can conclude anything out of it. <br><br>Hello! This is <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>science</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> we're talking about, people. <br><br>There is no denying that many of the mainstream articles attempting to quell public belief in 9/11 conspiracy such as Pop Mechanics have put front and center the no-plane, pod, hologram, and cd factions in their "debunkings", and ignored the more "conservative" -- and I might add well-respected within the movement -- researchers who focus on non-physical evidence such as intelligence and right-wing protection and funding of terror hubs and cells in the US, CIA birth and use and control of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Southeast Asia, Chechnya, military "stand-down", shepherding of hijackers by CIA/NSA, forewarnings by foreign govts., day-of warnings, whistleblower testimony of blocked investigations, etc., etc. etc. <br><br>There is no denying that the debate over the technical aspects of the case, specifically the no-plane, pod, hologram, and cd arguments, have hindered the spread of 9/11 conspiracy consciousness in those that would have already believed in LIHOP had they not been served up that very thing they were -- in the operation of their denial mechanism -- seeking, to dismiss the looming stark reality of the LIHOP conspiracy in their minds. <br><br>So, poll: how many people reading this agree with what both Mark Rabinowitz of oilempire.com and Sander Hicks in his new book "The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistleblowers, and the Cover-Up", and others say: that much of what could be called the "physical evidence" faction of the 9/11 Truth Movement is actually disinformation -- a red herring planted by the US intelligence agencies to discredit the overall argument for 9/11 conspiracy, in the minds of the general public?<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
