9/11 "Truth" effectively neutralized in mainstream

[isachar]

"many genuine 9/11 truth-seekers are simply not prepared to accept abstruse theories about the weird interconnections between intelligence agencies, organized crime, international fascism and freakish cults."<br><br>And that is precisely where Sibel Edmonds takes us. There is a reason she was the first of now four people who have national security/Patriot Act gag orders against them.<br><br>The truth is too horrible to bear for many. Much easier to go shopping at Wal Mart and watch the latest 911 Flight 93 Oliver Stone drivel that emanates from Hollywood. Viscerally, most people are aware that something is very very wrong.<br><br>I do believe I'll have another beer. <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

They will blow long and hard about how Controlled Demolition is ridiculous, but they will NOT show us WTC-7 falling.<br><br>Mark my words. Video showing WTC-7 falling is the achilles heel of 9/11 truth squelchers and debunkers in a world where a few seconds of video or photographic "evidence" is the only thing people have the time or inclination to examine.<br><br>It's not the best reason to suspect a 9/11 cover up or 9/11 complicity, but it's very effective propaganda to get people thinking.<br><br>The fact that the FEMA report admits that its only explanation has a "low probability", the NIST report and the 9/11 Commission don't even TOUCH WTC-7, no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire before, NIST didn't recover A SINGLE SCRAP of metal from WTC-7 for its recently released metallurgical analysis, and the only WTC-7 metal ever studied (two pieces examined by FEMA metallurgists who called for further study that was NEVER done) show completely unexplained signs of high temperature sulfidation only adds to completely legitimate and rational suspicions.<br><br>Don't fool yourselves. The MSM does NOT want to talk about WTC-7 and they'll do anything (especially ignore WTC-7 theories completely and talk about just WTC-1 & 2 as if WTC-7 never existed) to avoid the subject.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/06/45_question_911.php" target="top">www.sploid.com/news/2006/06/45_question_911.php</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement — its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers' structure, which eventually collapsed.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Wow, 10,000 pages? Must be true, right? Just like the 25 volumes of the Warren Commission proved the magic bullet.<br><br>This is the cover-up weak point, using the NIST to counter <br>-the firemen who report hearing and seeing CD from within the WTC towers and after in their oral histories at the NYT website<br>(see Data Dump) <br>-the pools of molten steel glowing for weeks after<br>-the collapse photos showing smoking thermite on beam joints<br>-the after photos of thermite melt on beams<br><br>Naw, that's not strong evidence of anything and nothing to point Americans to, right?<br><br>Gee, tell me more about that guy in a cave! And give me more trigger words like 'Elvis' and 'Area 51' to make me feel good about blanket skepticism and shrugging the whole thing off.<br><br>Just how did 'the hijackers' navigate hundreds of miles and those cellphones...aw, nevermind. <p></p><i></i>

[Iroquois]

So, the staff over at the New York Times are suddenly concerned about the 9/11 Truth Movement. Of course they are, just like they were concerned that criticisms of the claims that Iraq had a formidable arsenal of WMD were heard prior to the '93 invasion.<br><br>As one of those who argue that discussion about controlled demolition bringing down one or more of WTC buildings on 9/11 and insistence on further investigation of that possibility benefit the 9/11 Truth movement, am I wrong to feel exonerated by this? <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

<br><br>Iroquois, this is sort of interesting if you haven't seen it. Gene Corley et al. must do some top notch work! <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Chicago200606/Chicago_KevinRyan.wmv" target="top">www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Chicago200606/Chicago_KevinRyan.wmv</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>(Damn. 10,000 pages? No shit?) <p></p><i></i>

[zjurhgvc]

The bigger the lie...<br><br>The Bible is allegory and symbol, but 2000 years later it's believed more literally by more people than it was 1,700 years ago.<br><br>Pearl Harbor as LIHOP is hardly in the mainstream. Not to mention the USS Maine MIHOP and etc. Gulf of Tonkin is small peanuts. But let us not forget that the magic bullet is still the official JFK legend. And that's what most people want, legends and lies, because in many ways they believe in miracles and angels, survive on faith while their sleeping with their best friend's spouse and etc. and so forth. What we want is grand stories that can make History.<br><br>On the other hand, CSI is so popular--shame the MSM has been completely taken over by the national security state. And they serve to stifly debate on Hollywood movies that seem to be warning us, at certain levels, and in general feeding our paranoia--V for Vendetta, Syriana, Constant Gardener, etc. <p></p><i></i>

[Mentalgongfu]

Okay, say the 9-11 truth movement succeeds. Americans wake up to the fact something is rotten. They might disagree about LIHOP or MIHOP or whether controlled demolition was more important than put options, some would say planes, some would say no planes, etc., as the truth movement does now -<br>but say the populace agrees on high-level complicity and government omissions and distortions -<br><br>WHAT THEN?<br><br>More investigations? Impeachment? Armed revolution?<br><br>That's the question we desperately need the answer to, yet I think most people are afraid to ask it, because no path it leads to will be full of strawberries and sunshine. <br><br>It seems to me the focus of the 9-11 truth movement is awareness. And awareness is needed. <br><br>But once awareness is established, what is the next step? It seems to me there is an underlying assumption that once enough people believe we the official story is bull, something will just happen. <br><br>Bush, Cheney and Rummy will have nowhere to run, America will return to freedom and glory, etc. <br><br>I don't think that's a safe assumption. I think it's highly possible 99 percent of the country could believe in controlled demolition, but would feel and act as impotent and powerless as ever, and do nothing but go about their daily lives. <br><br>I've got some other thoughts to add here, but I'll have to try and remember to do it later, as I've spent too much time on this post already. It was supposed to be "a quick thought" but I've been thinking about it for quite some time now. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[sunny]

I'm not really worried about 911 truth penetrating mass consciousness- It will. Remember it took some years for the truth of the Kennedy assassination to get through, even though people like Mark Lane and Sylvia Meagher were valiantly trying to get the truth out very early on. And they were writing books that most people could not find in the local bookstores. The truth of 911 is as close as a local library's computer terminal, for those interested enough to go searching. And they will. Someday, 70% of the people will believe in a gov't conspiracy wrt 911, just as they do the assassination. The rub here? Just like with the Kennedy killing, nothing will be done. Maybe another investigation will be formed, like the HSCA in the seventies, and it will also offer a half-hearted limited hangout, and ultimately, no one responsible will ever be punished. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but as the saying goes, those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it... <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"The MSM does NOT want to talk about WTC-7 and they'll do anything (especially ignore WTC-7 theories completely and talk about just WTC-1 & 2 as if WTC-7 never existed) to avoid the subject."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>It seems that way to me, too. However, that does <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>not</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> mean that they somehow know something we don't. I think when someone in the "MSM" takes a look at WTC7 falling, they may well have the instinctive reaction that "this actually looks quite suspicious, maybe there is something to this after all, I don't think we should rock the boat too much on this".<br><br>That doesn't mean there <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>is</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> anything to the theories about WTC7, necessarily. But the average journalist wouldn't know how to analyze the video footage any better than the average conspiracist.<br><br>BTW, albion, I agree with you. While I think the official story is probably more or less correct regarding how the attacks were physically carried out, I think the truth may be even stranger and more unexpected than the conspiracist fiction. <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

Like I said, it's very effective propaganda to start people thinking about the unthinkable.<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://rochester.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/5/wtc7.gif"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>What does that look like to you? <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

Structural damage from fire coupled with the explosion of some diesel tanks. Alternatively, if it was any kind of implosion, the building was pre-rigged in case terrorists hit it so that it wouldn't tip over and important papers wouldn't be released into the middle of the street. <p></p><i></i>

[Iroquois]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>...if it was any kind of implosion, the building was pre-rigged in case terrorists hit it so that it wouldn't tip over and important papers wouldn't be released into the middle of the street.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>It would make much more sense to keep important documents in safes with internal incendiary devices that can be remotely triggered. There's less risk of discovery by non-cleared personal. It's easier to maintain, cheaper and easier to impliment, less prone to destabilization, more likely to actually destroy the documents rather than just blow them out onto the streets or bury them in rubble to be found by who-knows-who later, and will cause much less collateral damage during either deliberate or accidental detonation. <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Structural damage from fire coupled with the explosion of some diesel tanks. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Umm, sure. Because that always causes steel frame skyscrapers to spontaneously and completely implode into their own footprints. Right? <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

I need to start using emoticons I guess. <br><br>Am I that much of an unknown here? (Don't answer that.) <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 6/7/06 8:30 pm<br></i>