Jeff wrote:But now in the 9/11 "community," the self-accredited demolition experts who know because they've watched it on video, are even suspicious of the motives of those who want an honest investigation. They already have the answers, and if you still have questions you're either a fool or a tool.
This is an unfair characterisation. It is exactly this sort of characterisation to which people object.
I think you are missing the point Jeff. People aren't criticised for lacking certainty about what happened to those three skyscrapers. Not at all. The only folk who express certainty seem to me to be the professional disinfo types, lasers from space, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer.
People aren't suspicious of folk for wanting an honest investigation. That's not true either.
People are suspicious when researchers of physical evidence which contradicts the official 911 narrative, come under attack, especially when that attack uses the blunt but effective weapon of ridicule. It is one thing to assert that skyscraper collapse researchers and theorists are making a tactical error of focus, another thing entirely to heap scorn upon them as if their assertions or theories are risible. Dr Steven Jones, Prof David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and others are certainly not ludicrous. They are serious and competent professional people. The distinction of being ludicrous truly belongs to the NIST report compilers and other apologists for an official narrative that does not stand up to scrutiny.
When all is said and done, there is no "movement." And there are certainly no acknowledged "leaders," certainly not David Shayler, whose frailties, delusions or dubious loyalties could be used all too easily to tarnish the whole notion of 911 inside job. In fact, that is exactly the strategy we can expect apologists of the official 911 narrative to seek to adopt.
I have been told it is churlish to doubt your commitment to a belief in 911 inside job, and I am forced to concur. That being so, perhaps we can focus on those things on which we agree, and renew a commitment to speaking the truth about the overwhelming and conclusive evidence of 911 inside job, rather than seeking to disseminate the idea that belief in an inside job is to be equated with membership of a delusional and dogmatic cult.
I take your point about loyalty oaths. I accept that I was wrong to put such a question in such a way, and that it was wholly unacceptable. Your writings speak for themselves, especially the coincidence theorists guide, which I link to here for the benefit of any who may no have read it;
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2 ... o-911.html
