9/11 "Truth" effectively neutralized in mainstream

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

9/11 "Truth" effectively neutralized in mainstream

Postby nomo » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:38 pm

The New York Times astutely points out the "9/11 Truth" movement's Achilles heel: controlled demolition as the single most decisive issue. Thanks, Prof. Jones and others, for sucessfully drawing attention away from the stuff that really would have made a difference. Thanks <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>a lot.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><!--EZCODE HR START--><hr /><!--EZCODE HR END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11<br></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->By ALAN FEUER<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.htm">www.nytimes.com/2006/06/0...piracy.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>CHICAGO, June 4 — In the ballroom foyer of the Embassy Suites Hotel, the two-day International Education and Strategy Conference for 9/11 Truth was off to a rollicking start.<br><br>In Salon Four, there was a presentation under way on the attack in Oklahoma City, while in the room next door, the splintered factions of the movement were asked — for sake of unity — to seek a common goal.<br><br>In the foyer, there were stick-pins for sale ("More gin, less Rummy"), and in the lecture halls discussions of the melting point of steel. "It's all documented," people said. Or: "The mass media is mass deception." Or, as strangers from the Internet shook hands: "Great to meet you. Love the work."<br><br>Such was the coming-out for the movement known as "9/11 Truth," a society of skeptics and scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist attacks. In colleges and chat rooms on the Internet, this band of disbelievers has been trying for years to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.<br><br>Whatever one thinks of the claim that the state would plan, then execute, a scheme to murder thousands of its own, there was something to the fact that more than 500 people — from Italy to Northern California — gathered for the weekend at a major chain hotel near the runways of O'Hare International. It was, in tone, half trade show, half political convention. There were talks on the Reichstag fire and the sinking of the Battleship Maine as precedents for 9/11. There were speeches by the lawyer for James Earl Ray, who claimed that a military conspiracy killed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and by a former operative for the British secret service, MI5.<br><br>"We feel at this point we've done a lot of solid research, but the American public still is not informed," said Michael Berger, press director for 911Truth.org, which sponsored the event. "We had to come up with a disciplined approach to get it out."<br><br>Mr. Berger, 40, is typical of 9/11 Truthers — a group that, in its rank and file, includes professors, chain-saw operators, mothers, engineers, activists, used-book sellers, pizza deliverymen, college students, a former fringe candidate for United States Senate and a long-haired fellow named hummux (pronounced who-mook) who, on and off, lived in a cave for 15 years.<br><br>The former owner of a recycling plant outside St. Louis, Mr. Berger joined the movement when he grew skeptical of why the 9/11 Commission had failed, to his sense of sufficiency, to answer how the building at 7 World Trade Center collapsed like a ton of bricks. It was his "9/11 trigger," the incident that drew him in, he said. For others, it might be the fact that the air-defense network did not prevent the attacks that day, or the appearance of thousands of "puts" — or short-sell bids — on the nation's airline stocks. (The 9/11 Commission found the sales innocuous.)<br><br>Such "red flags," as they are sometimes called, were the meat and potatoes of the keynote speech on Friday night by Alex Jones, who is the William Jennings Bryan of the 9/11 band. Mr. Jones, a syndicated radio host, is known for his larynx-tearing screeds against corruption — fiery, almost preacherly, addresses in which he sweats, balls his fists and often swerves from quoting Roman history to using foul language in a single breath.<br><br>At the lectern Friday night, beside a digital projection reading "History of Government Sponsored Terrorism," Mr. Jones set forth the central tenets of 9/11 Truth: that the military command that monitors aircraft "stood down" on the day of the attacks; that President Bush addressed children in a Florida classroom instead of being whisked off to the White House; that the hijackers, despite what the authorities say, were trained at American military bases; and that the towers did not collapse because of burning fuel and weakened steel but because of a "controlled demolition" caused by pre-set bombs.<br><br>According to the group's Web site, the motive for faking a terrorist attack was to allow the administration "to instantly implement policies its members have long supported, but which were otherwise infeasible."<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>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. </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->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.<br><br>The movement's answer to that report was written by Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University and the movement's expert in the matter of collapse. Dr. Jones, unlike Alex Jones, is a soft-spoken man who lets his writing do the talking. He composed an account of the destruction of the towers (physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html) that holds that "pre-positioned cutter-charges" brought the buildings down.<br><br>Like a prior generation of skeptics — those who doubted, say, the Warren Commission or the government's account of the Gulf of Tonkin attack — the 9/11 Truthers are dogged, at home and in the office, by friends and family who suspect that they may, in fact, be completely nuts.<br><br>"Elvis and Area 51 — we're sort of lumped together," said Harlan Dietrich, a recent college graduate from Austin, Tex. "It's attack the messenger, not the message every time."<br><br>To get the message out, the movement has gone beyond bumper stickers and "Kumbaya" into political action.<br><br>There is a plan, Mr. Berger said, to create a fund to support candidates on a 9/11 platform. There is a plan to create a network of college campus groups. There is a plan by the British delegation (such as it is, so far) to get members of Parliament to watch "Loose Change," the seminal movement DVD.<br><br>It would even seem the Truthers are not alone in believing the whole truth has not come out. A poll released last month by Zogby International found that 42 percent of all Americans believe the 9/11 Commission "concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence" in the attacks. This is in addition to the Zogby poll two years ago that found that 49 percent of New York City residents agreed with the idea that some leaders "knew in advance" that the attacks were planned and failed to act.<br><br>Beneath the weekend's screenings and symposiums on geopolitics and mass-hypnotic trance lies a tradition of questioning concentrated power, both in public and in private hands, said Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida and author of "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture."<br><br>As for the 9/11 Truthers, they were confident enough that their theories made sense that on Friday, as a kickoff to the conference, they met in Daley Plaza for a rally (though some called it Dealey Plaza). They marched up Kinzle Street to the local affiliate of NBC where, at the plate glass windows, they chanted, "Talking heads tell lies," as the news was being read.<br><br>"I hope you don't end up dead somewhere," a companion said to a participant, hours earlier as he dropped him at the Loop. "Don't worry," the participant said. "There's too many of us for that."<br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 "Truth" effectively neutralized in mainst

Postby sunny » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:44 pm

911 truth has always been effectively neutralized in the mainstream. This is no different and should be taken for what it is- just another attempt to demonize people who question the official story, no matter what aspect of the case they focus on. Do you honestly believe they would not do they same if the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>entire</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> truth movement were focusing on things like put options or stand- downs? <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

msm

Postby Sarutama » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:50 pm

<!--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.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I love how they purport to know the main element of the 911 truth movement when, lets be fair, those in the movement bare know what it is. <p></p><i></i>
Sarutama
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 "Truth" effectively neutralized in mainst

Postby nomo » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:51 pm

The thing is that the Controlled Demolition bullshit is being used to dismiss other, more valid claims as equally outlandish. And to great effect. Notice how they're only mentioning stand-downs or put options in passing? No need to go there after all, when you got people pontificating about "pre-positioned cutter-charges" and other such unprovable rubbish.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"Elvis and Area 51 — we're sort of lumped together."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>That pretty much sums it up.<br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 "Truth" effectively neutralized in mainst

Postby * » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:17 pm

<br><br> you have only to remember the Howard Dean knockout or the swiftboating of Kerry to understand thay don't NEED an issue.... they can(and will) make it up, spin it or do whatever it takes to frame it THEIR way....<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
*
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 "Truth" effectively neutralized in mainst

Postby nomo » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:25 pm

I get what you're trying to say, but the fact is that Dean *did* scream like a banshee, and Kerry *was* on the defensive about his military record. The media didn't make it up out of thin air, but they expertly magnified these "issues" to their overblown proportions. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

I have to agree with nomo here

Postby FourthBase » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:47 pm

Controlled demolition for WTC7 is one thing.<br>To <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>insist</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> on CD for the two towers is another.<br>The 9/11 truth movement needs to de-emphasize CD. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Sine qua what?

Postby Bismillah » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:54 pm

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"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. "</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Sine qua non</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> my latin arse; but naturally, this is increasingly the way they're spinning it.<br><br>It's also just exactly what Ruppert predicted would happen if 9/11 sceptics didn't take special care to avoid the "physical evidence" quagmire. The entire case gets reduced to interminable, unwinnable arguments about holes in walls and bombs in basements. Everything else is forgotten, and that includes all the shocking anomalies listed in the Coincidence Theorist's Guide. <br><br>"The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement..." What nonsense. But what sneakily clever mendacity, too. How terribly NYT. <br><br>Cui bono? <p></p><i></i>
Bismillah
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:35 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Exposure

Postby yathrib » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:03 pm

So much for the idea that "getting the information out" makes any difference. The thrust of the NYT article is to discourage people from questioning the official 9/11 story because it is a bad fashion statement! Truth is just not the issue for most people. <p></p><i></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Sine qua what?

Postby pugzleyca3 » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:13 pm

Well, I can tell you one thing. Whether or not CD was responsible for the towers falling or not, it certainly LOOKS that way when viewing the videos of the towers falling down.<br>Especially when the suggestion of CD is put in front of someone who never considered that possibility before.<br><br>By bringing up the CD issue in their article, it might just have the opposite effect than what they hoped for (diminishing the movement) and cause more people to wonder how those towers really did come down.<br><br>The mention of building 7 falling the same way, might also be counterproductive to their aims. <br><br>This article has a snide tone to it and is easily recognizeable as what I would term: conclusive from the outset. <br><br>Most news is much more subtle than this when spreading propaganda. So I am hoping that people will hear the snide tone and recognize the slaps and punches the article delivers for what they are.<br><br>It's obvious that their point is to heckle and demean the people who believe 9/11 was an inside job, regardless of what level of belief they hold. <br><br>That in itself might serve against them. People love to root for the underdog and this article is so full of chides and shitty remarks against the movement, they may have well established the truth movement to some as the underdog.<br><br>Let's hope. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pugzleyca3>pugzleyca3</A> at: 6/5/06 3:14 pm<br></i>
pugzleyca3
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 "Truth" effectively neutralized in mainst

Postby isachar » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:36 pm

All efforts to expose corruption by the highest levels of government lose, lose and lose - until they win.<br><br>"they can(and will) make it up, spin it or do whatever it takes to frame it THEIR way."<br><br>This is precisely correct. I am certain that Cheney, Rummy, et.al. knew that the physical evidence was going to be the strongest evidence against them. Which is why extreme measures were taken to control, suppress and destroy the physical evidence. Prof. Jones has done the 911 movement a big favor by placing the demo case squarely where it belongs - in the realm of analysis, verification and testing, rather than speculation.<br><br>Those who attack Jones and others who have made credible cases regarding the physical evidence, would do better to focus on the disinfo specialists like Thierry Myessen (the author of the "no-plane" theory) or "Webfairy" (one of the prime sponsors of the pod and hologram hoaxes), and their naive followers.<br><br>Think about it, if Myessen or webfairy didn't exist Cheney/Rummy would have had to invent them - which may well be the case. Otherwise they got a couple freebies that keep paying dividends.<br><br>Ruppert wants to focus on the War Games, and by golly, why not? But that subject is even more under Cheney/Rummy's control. How is the role of the war games played going to be pried loose from the Pentagon any better? And, what will stop them from doctoring up whatever video evidence on the Pentagon hit they require among that which is still being withheld?<br><br>Personally, I would have focused on the purported cell phone transcripts and the impossibility of making cell phone calls from the planes in addition to the lack of sworn testimony from Ted Olson whose phony story(ies) about his wife's phone call put the entire "box cutters" meme at work. Joe Vialls did an excellent job of deconstructing that part of the hoax.<br><br>I think some of the weakest links in the official story relate to what happened on Flights 93 and 77 before they crashed and what happened in the Bunker between Cheney, Mineta and the military aid who Cheney said gave a false (and non-existent) report of a supposed threat to AF-1 that invoked a highly secret Code word.<br><br>Nevertheless, can anyone doubt for a second that if, say those issues, or the put options had become the predominant vocus on the 911 truth movement that the focus of most disinfo wouldn't have been on that? And, by the way, just what happened to the physical evidence related to the put options anyway? It all got swept up, sucked up and disappeared. So, if the put options are someone's idea of the way to unlock the crime, that would yield no better results than the focus on CD.<br><br>I don't think those who have devoted credible efforts towards deconstructing WTC 7 and the twin towers collapses should be objects of attack by others trying to unlock the 911 hoax. <br><br>Go after the primary lies (all of them) and the disinfo agents. That's what will ultimately pay off. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 6/5/06 3:42 pm<br></i>
isachar
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 "Truth" effectively neutralized in mainst

Postby NewKid » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:19 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Like a prior generation of skeptics — those who doubted, say, the Warren Commission or the government's account of the Gulf of Tonkin attack — the 9/11 Truthers are dogged, at home and in the office, by friends and family who suspect that they may, in fact, be completely nuts.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Hmm. Maybe wanna leave the Gulf of Tonkin out the next time. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3810724" target="top">www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3810724</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm" target="top">www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 "Truth" effectively neutralized in mainst

Postby isachar » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:29 pm

New Kid, yeah, good catch. <br><br>This reference operates on three levels - it re-introduces the "old" false meme that there actually was a Gulf of Tonkin incident, it attempts to refute the newer indisputable evidence the incident did not occur and was contrived to begin with, and it attempts to besmirch the 911 truth movement by conflating it with a now disproven lie that is still largely accepted by most.<br><br>The author is either a disino agent himself, or an ignoramus.<br><br>Good catch, indeed. <p></p><i></i>
isachar
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 "Truth" effectively neutralized in mainst

Postby albion » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:30 pm

Aside from whatever nefarious characters may be pushing CD, the idea has taken on a life of its own. The theory gets traction because it's so simple and visceral -- true or not, you can 'get it' in an instant. By contrast, the granular details of the circumstances surrounding the attack are complex, abstruse and difficult to grasp. I certainly don't pretend to understand it all.<br><br>But it appears that the "big picture" emerging from some reporting, namely Hopsickers, is far more dark, complex and disturbing than anything that could ever emerge from any "physical evidence" investigation, no matter how exhaustive. And yet, I'd be willing to bet that 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. Even if all that stuff were put on the table, it'd still be too "out there" for many. Unfortunately. <p></p><i></i>
albion
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 9/11 "Truth" effectively neutralized in mainst

Postby NewKid » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:41 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The thrust of the NYT article is to discourage people from questioning the official 9/11 story because it is a bad fashion statement! Truth is just not the issue for most people. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yeah, the cool kids definitely won't be caught dead in 9-11 truth this season. <br><br>I guess they've beaten to death the psychobabble "conspiracy theories make sense of a random world; they're a manifestation of what I call in my book, a sense of agency panic" type of article. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests