King_Mob wrote:American Dream wrote: You will easily find mechanical engineers familiar with the structural flaws in the design of the WTC that allowed it to collapse in the first place, and physicists who can explain why such large buildings would appear to be imploding as if in a controlled demolition, or why people on the scene would have thought they were hearing explosions, etc. My purpose here is not to disprove all the hypothoses presented by the Truthers and their propaganda pieces -- if you want to look into "debunking the debunkers" yourself, there is plenty of information out there, and Popular Mechanics' issue on the subject is a good place to start.
Is this guy serious? Popular Mechanics? Sounds like a shill to me. These claims are as utterly baseless as an NIST report... but I know Jeff wouldn't "give a shit" about something as orthodox as that.
My basic qualm with both Rovic and Jeff's position, is that in their distaste for the "truth movement", they are the one's creating the stigma for those "truthers" who think that exploring the physical anomalies of the event are indeed worthwhile. They are also the one's dividing it... which may or may not allow it to be conquered.
I think the real issue is this: the 9/11 Truth Movement will only be successful if it is EFFECTIVE. It must be effective in changing the way people view the events that occurred on that day, and most importantly, cause people to question the "official" narrative of the U.S. Government. However, for this movement to be effective, it must first appear to be legitimate, otherwise the average individual who watches the mainstream media, will automatically see the arguments as being "conspiratorial" in nature, which has a strong negative stigma attached to it within mainstream discourse. The APPEARANCE OF LEGITIMACY is therefore important to the movement, otherwise it will never gain mainstream support, and thus it will be neither effective nor successful in its goal.
Allow me to illustrate my point. I am currently a student at the top rated academic institution in all of Canada. Recently, the university debating society held a lecture in the main theater, hosting two representatives from the organizations Scholars for 9/11 Truth an Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The lecture hall was absolutely packed full of students, adults, and seniors alike. Both lecturers were retired university professors, each of them with doctorates and one of them being an engineer. At the very beginning of the lecture, they were careful to point out that they were simply there to present the audience with forensic and scientific evidence that showed physical anomalies that were not compatible with the official government narrative and the report given by the NIST. They were clear that they were not going to present us with any "conspiracy theories", a comment that was met with laughter by the audience.
What they presented were anomalies that seemingly violate the laws of nature, and did so as objectively as possible. Some of the issues they discussed were very familiar to any "CD Truther" such as:
- The inconsistency between the official narrative and NIST with basic elementary school Newtonian physics (ie. the law of conservation of momentum) and the apparent acceleration of the collapse which followed the path of least resistance, as well as the general burning temperatures of building fires, and the melting point of steel.
-Excerpts from the extensive collection of testimonies from first responders reporting detailed recollections of explosions at the onset of the destruction
- The photos, videos, and reports of flowing molten metal found under the rubble up to three weeks later
- The empirical evidence of pulverization of concrete with outward arching plumes, and the rapid expansion of a pyroclastic flow-like dust cloud
- The chemical evidence for the use of thermate on steel and dust samples, including the discover of molten iron globules, and from the FEMA steel analysis the evidence of sulfidation, oxidation, and integranular melting
These were just a few of the points that were made, and if nothing else, these claims appear to be scientific, objective and thus legitimate, and that is enough for the average "truther" to at least get their foot in the door, and raise questions in the minds of even the most hardened skeptics. There were at least 300 people in the audience, and I am sure that this approach must have changed at least ONE person's mind as to the credibility of the official narrative. If this is the case, then those "truthers" were successful in their goal, and I would attribute this to the effectiveness of their delivery of objective and scientific claims, and hence, their appearance of legitimacy. Thus, in order for "the movement" to be truly effective, we need people with strong credentials to back it, not just journalists and internet bloggers, but people that can at least appear to have real credibility. Most importantly, discourse must move off of the street corners the and from the virtual domain of the blogosphere/web forums, and into the lecture halls of universities, colleges, and high schools. That is where this movement will be most effective in it's goal of changing people's minds, and that is where it will find success
Let me make one last point. I am in no way trying to marginalize any of the other extremely important aspects of 9/11 truth, such as the connection between Al-Qaeda and Intelligence, NORAD war games, the testamony of Sibel Edmonds, the possible connection between Atta and Heroin trafficking, AA Put Options, Stand down orders, "Angel is Next", etc. All of these are very important pieces of the puzzle, and anyone who is serious about researching 9/11 must investigate these in order to fully connect the dots. However, these claims are encroaching on, if not fully steeped in, "conspiracy" territory. And most of you should be aware that the term conspiracy is an absolute thought-stopper in mainstream discourse. These claims lead the average person very deep down the rabbit hole, which is why some skeptics will never jump on board. Yet, if you present them evidence that is objective and scientific, and shows that the official narrative is incompatible with NATURE itself, you have yourself the appearance of legitimacy, and thus, an effective foot in the door.
What I think we should be doing instead of squabbling over "dogma" is trying to integrate all of this information into something coherent and cohesive. We are getting nowhere by calling each other names and dividing ourselves into camps. If we allow ourselves to be divided, then we will allow ourselves to be conquered. So, we need to try to be effective as possible in changing people's minds, because effectiveness is the only measure of success.
Cheers.
)
