9/11 Truth Movement vs. 9/11 Truth

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:55 am

compared2what? wrote:8bit, I appreciate your effort and look forward to continuing to discuss all the minutiae of our dying civilization with you (thereby actually allowing it to die), but you did not understand a word I said.

I was out all day, just returned, re-read it, and can't say that I blame you that much for it, however. I have no idea what you want people to wake up to or why. These are some things I know that I would like others to spend the same amount of energy thinking about as they do thinking about the details of what happened one day seven years ago.

I know that a horrible crime occurred on that day in which a number of people are implicated. I don't know how many, but I'd say the truly culpable would fit in a large conference room -- ie, not a tiny number, but not hundreds and hundreds, either. I observe that all people implicated have benefited in one way or another from the crime. I don't know, but do allege, based on some information and some belief, that this is because ultimately they all play for one team. I don't know or care whether that team is the Washington Meta-Nationals, or the Illuminati Meta-nationals. Because I do know that I'm not on it. I also know that the life of anyone who is not on that team has no value at all in its eyes. I also know the people who hold high public office in my country are liars. I allege that they are completely lawless. And I know that I am complicit in all the savagery, viciousness, and evil that serves their interests. Because they and the system they run are nothing without me, many times multiplied.

What the hell else does anyone need to know? The perps for the seven-year-old crime are at large, and they have not been held accountable. But there are at the moment much bigger crimes in progress, for which I am accountable, but cannot prevent unless all other currently bickering parties stop bickering about then and think about now. The crime currently underway might be halted if everyone who tells pollsters that's what they want admitted they were accountable and were going to demonstrate their regret by ceasing to cooperate. That's only a little more likely than pigs flying, but if it's not totally out of the question, I don't see that there's anything to lose by trying it that we're not going to end up losing if we spend our time fucking bickering about who can tell the best story about how we got to the here and now.

You are implicated in horrible, horrible things, if you are an American citizen, imo. Much worse things than a failure to acknowledge controlled demolition or an insistence on acknowledging it. I cannot understand why anyone would not prefer to work toward getting the little detail of their complicity in ongoing mass murder straightened out than to work toward winning a fucking forensic debate. I am not accusing all American citizens of viciousness, btw. Far from it. I'm an American citizen and I deplore what is done in my name, but, whatever. As long as I'm not on strike against it, I can't see how I'm not implicated. I pay for it, for one thing. I contribute to the upkeep of the illusion that we live in a free society. I'd say I'm culpable. I do say it.

I'm bowing out until I've come up with a better means of getting my point across. So go on back to bickering.

kthxby

ON EDIT: Maybe two large conference rooms.


I thought that was worh repeating.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10622
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hammer of Los » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:03 am

8bitagent wrote:If I remember...The Lone Gunmen pilot was about war games acting as cover for a live exercise that electronically hijacked a passenger plane to slam it into the towers; done by a hidden faction in the government with high level advanced artificial intelligence....all to blame on a Muslim country and start wars/increase the military. Scripted in 1999, filmed in early 2000, then shown in March 2001.

Even this, I tend to think may have been a coincidence.


You gotta be kidding me.

As to Bill Cooper, he sure looked like a crazy to me, with some very unpleasant views, but that doesn't mean he wasn't privy to genuine information, no matter how he obtained it.

Quite honestly, I have no idea how Alex Jones and Cooper came by their information. Maybe stuff just filters through. The Lone Gunmen thing, well it sure looks like a deliberate "inject," although to me its difficult to understand the rationale. I suppose it was "innoculation," making the thesis seem crazy because it was already covered by a far-fetched sci-fi show.

I think on the whole this "putting out real information together with bogus, via a source assumed by the public to be unreliable or even whacko," is a strategem that has its own risks attached. Having said that, I guess it works for the most part. Of course there are many folk like us around here who dig around in these sources for the real information, and then try and verify what we can the best we can. Perhaps thats just the game they want us to spend our time playing.

In my own humble way, I predicted 911 too. It was the night before 911. I was watching I think BBC Newsnight, and they were running a piece on Bin Laden. Just out of the blue, not in response to any topical news item, and it was the third or fourth piece I had seen about him in the space of a week or two. It immediately seemed to me to be part of a coordinated media campaign in support of some hidden policy agenda. So, I turned to the wife and said, "What the hell is this? Are they planning a war in Afghanistan now?" The next day, as I watched the live footage of the second plane striking the WTC, I realised I was right. I turned to my work colleagues and said, "Bye bye Afghanistan."
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby IanEye » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:21 am

Hammer of Los wrote:In my own humble way, I predicted 911 too. It was the night before 911. I was watching I think BBC Newsnight, and they were running a piece on Bin Laden. Just out of the blue, not in response to any topical news item, and it was the third or fourth piece I had seen about him in the space of a week or two. It immediately seemed to me to be part of a coordinated media campaign in support of some hidden policy agenda. So, I turned to the wife and said, "What the hell is this? Are they planning a war in Afghanistan now?" The next day, as I watched the live footage of the second plane striking the WTC, I realised I was right. I turned to my work colleagues and said, "Bye bye Afghanistan."


Taliban blow apart 2,000 years of Buddhist history
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/03/afghanistan.lukeharding

Why the Taliban are destroying Buddhas
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/ar ... uddhas.htm

_ - _ - _

Iraq invades Kuwait
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/2/newsid_2526000/2526937.stm

Brazen Saddam
http://onthisdayinvideo.blogspot.com/2007/08/iraq-invades-kuwait-1990.html
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Postby lunarose » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:45 am

per brainpanhandler:

'My personal feeling is that public funding of election campaigns is a first step which must be taken of the huge money interests are ever to be wrested from their ensconcement. We can never be free of tyranny as long as we are ruled by billionaires who are beholded to corporations ruled by billionaires. And yet this is a fight that just may be won, not some quixotic puzzle to dazzle our sense and rob us of our time, dividing groups to whom shared interests and solutions are in their own best interests.'

so very agreed.
lunarose
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: O'Neills,
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Activism, strategy, and 9/11 truth.

Postby AlanStrangis » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:26 am

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
FourthBase wrote:
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Activism must comply with (and take advantage of) the tested rules of propaganda-

1) Your message must be visible.

2) Your message must be relevant to the audience.

3) Your message must be conveyed with credibility.

4) Your message must be understandable.

5) Your message must be easily repeated.

Re: 9/11.
Only the easy to prove and describe controlled demolition of the WTC meets these criteria.


Fucking HORSESHIT.


OMG. Fonts!

I'm sure you can elaborate, FB. Please do.

Consider the complicated web of intrigue around Dealey Plaza which few can plumb without becoming part-time scholars...but the masses can understand the physical evidence of the Zapruder film ("back and to the left") and all those witnesses describing shots from the fenceline on the grassy knoll.

You think TV nation can grok the stuff about NWO puppets whose names aren't even pronouncable that 8bitagent focuses on?

No way.

Yeah, because diphenylpropane (1,3, DPP)... just ROLLS of the average joe's tongue...

but wait a second...

we're not talking about convincing 'TV nation'. The average joes (people who aren't really politically active) who will be convinced by CD already HAVE been, because it's by FAR the most widely dispersed 9/11 meme.

The OP (and many similar threads here and elsewhere lately) are talking about the reaction that activists who are being constantly berated, insulted, shouted over and bombarded on a constant basis by a bunch of average joes acting like Alex Jones.

More analysis from Stephen Jones et al is NOT going to sway them, if truthers are constantly throwing it in their faces (50 paragraph cut and paste jobs are the online equivalent), while simultaneously calling them gatekeepers.

I would think that someone as versed in communication tactics would realize that your 5 point outline above absolutely fails in two points in regards to anti-war activists..

2) Your message must be relevant to the audience.

3) Your message must be conveyed with credibility.

(and probably 4 as well)


It is quite OBVIOUS from the polarization in the anti-war community, that the message is neither relevant nor credible, and that CD has run it's course in the activist community (whether deliberately by associations with COINTELPRO elements or otherwise is not the issue).

Nor how fervently YOU believe CD to be THE issue.

The issue is how to effectively appeal to the segment of the population that is generally labeled 'anti war left' and has remained unswayed by CD. How to build that bridge so to speak.

If you can't (or won't) see that by now, then there's really no need to carry on this conversation...

I just want to highlight something 8bit said and give an example, because my take on 9/11 is very much in line with his...
8bitagent wrote:I have an enormously difficult time respecting the opinion of socalled "anti war liberals" who think 9/11 was all done by muslim fanatics, and was merely blowback and incompetence. Ive been ridiculed by so called "Anti Bush" lefty youth who should be on the same page, and its shown what a brainwashed mass of gelatanous cooption the American liberal paradigm has become.

Yeah how come NONE of the people who lamblast 9/11 Truthers offer what THEY believe happened?

I believe each hijacker was specially sponsored through the Bosnian conflict vis-a-vis intelligence agencies and corporations worldwide, and that measures were put into place to ensure the planes hit and towers fell.
I believe this 100% after several years of meticulous research...

I'm pretty much in agreement with you, but from my personal experience, I've brought a few "anti war liberals" to see my point of view not by hammering them with CD, but by as Hugh suggests "making the message relevant to the audience".

A while ago, a friend of mine (a friend who had seen and read a ton about CD and the such and had the same 'so what - it may be possible but...' reaction as the majority of anti-war left people brought up something Chomsky had said about Bosnia and expounded on it. During the course of that conversation, it came up about Bisera Turkovic being made ambassador to the US, even though she had ties to the KLA, and that there was some objection in the US about this. It's a relatively minor issue but...

He wasn't surprised, and said in a typical 'anti war left' response that it's just like when they funded OBL...

Well... I thought of that as an opening, as opposed to another example of a 'brainwashed Chomskyian anti-war left Amy'. From that point on the conversation had turned to the gun/oil/drug/terror intersects. The point being that it was a conversation, not a 'Sermon on the mound (of rubble)'. Many 'old skool' activists see these intersects at the exception, not the rule. To speak to this audience, all it takes is to make them realize it IS the rule, and not the exception and the flood gates open, so to speak.

The 'adding seasoning to what they already know' tactic has worked for me both online in mainstream political forums, and in real life. It usually doesn't happen overnight, especially online, because you have to earn their trust...

In that sense, I've taken on the role of an 'agent provocateur for the truth'.

That doesn't mean I pretend to know everything, because I don't (CDers could learn a thing or two on that point). I'm just stating my experiences.

Have I convinced "a lot" of people? I don't know the number but from my perspective it's a positive effect, because just about the only people who consider me a douche bag are the hard core freepers and the hard core CDers*.

I find that very easy to live with.
AlanStrangis
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby sunny » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:57 am

AlanStrangis:
CD has run it's course in the activist community


I agree. CD convinced a lot of people who are predisposed to disbelieving the gov't line on anything. They were the first to understand the truth. Many average Joe's came on board with them-from my own experience these average Joe's just looked at the buildings falling and couldn't believe it wasn't CD.

Now a scatteshot few in the mainstream have come to question 9/11, like Robert Fisk. People like him are not organized and have no desire to be. They just propose a few questions and cause people who read them to question also.

The anti-war left are our natural allies. If we can't convert them, how do we expect to convert low information citizens? For the most part, these left-liberal activists are not bad people, they are not all gatekeepers. As much as the snobbery of folks like Rovic annoy me, they are anti-imperialists and pro-justice. They are also part of a large movement who do not want to do anything to discredit themselves and limit their ability to participate in mainstream discourse, such as it is. They want to be able to get their message out. They are also natural "cliqueers" who would rather die than do or say anything to alienate other members of their peer group. Theories like CD have been effectively and permanently labeled "wacko" and off-limits. The debate on why that is could go on forever. Drop it already. Drop CD. The theory has converted all the people it can; from now on it will only alienate potential allies.

You have to approach the anti-war crowd on their own level. Appeal to their sense of intellectual and moral superiority. Appeal to their sense of justice, which is real. Keep asking: "The Bushies have killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq: why is it so difficult to believe they would kill three thousand to get what they wanted?" Hand out copies of the Northwoods document to prove 9/11 as an inside job is not an alien proposition from the point of view of gov't ops. There are thousands of other methods. Suggestions welcome.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Jeff » Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:31 pm

Interesting thoughts, sunny.

Something else I see is the apparent co-option of the Truth Movement by political cultists, predominantly LaRouchites and Paulites. This is a huge difference between how "9/11 Truth" presents itself today and how it did four years ago. I don't think it's snobbery that makes so many left activists turn up their nose at this.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby elfismiles » Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:42 pm

Jeff wrote:Interesting thoughts, sunny.

Something else I see is the apparent co-option of the Truth Movement by political cultists, predominantly LaRouchites and Paulites. This is a huge difference between how "9/11 Truth" presents itself today and how it did four years ago. I don't think it's snobbery that makes so many left activists turn up their nose at this.


Did I ever mention here the bumper sticker I saw in North Austin stuck to a STOP sign .... ?

It read: "The 911 Truth Movement is an Inside Job"

8)
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:47 pm

But literally any large popular movement is likely to be co-opted, by lots of people, for their own, often nefarious, often greedy, purposes. (The history of pop music since 1966 provides a good example.) That's why it's so disastrous that the academic and journalistic left is still turning up its nose at millions of people who in fact form its natural constituency.

If Cockburn, Corn, Kovics and their like keep saying "You kooks and hicks are too dumb for us to be seen dead with", then it is - to say the very least - pointless to complain when those untouchables turn to the likes of Paul and LaRouche.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:57 pm

Some LIHOP news from Glenn Greenwald at Salon:
Attorney General Michael Mukasey revealed a startling and extremely newsworthy fact. As I wrote last Saturday, Mukasey claimed that, prior to 9/11, the Bush administration was aware of a telephone call being made by an Al Qaeda Terrorist from what he called a "safe house in Afghanistan" into the U.S., but failed to eavesdrop on that call.


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... 3/mukasey/
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Eldritch » Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:00 pm

elfismiles wrote:
Jeff wrote:Interesting thoughts, sunny.

Something else I see is the apparent co-option of the Truth Movement by political cultists, predominantly LaRouchites and Paulites. This is a huge difference between how "9/11 Truth" presents itself today and how it did four years ago. I don't think it's snobbery that makes so many left activists turn up their nose at this.


Did I ever mention here the bumper sticker I saw in North Austin stuck to a STOP sign .... ?

It read: "The 911 Truth Movement is an Inside Job"

8)


Ha! I like the wit of that. :D

To a certain extent, I think it is undoubtedly true. That the 9/11 Truth Movement has been infiltrated by those who "let 9/11 happen" (or perpetrated it altogether) seems not only possible, but almost inescapable—considering the documented pattern of the intelligence community in infiltrating everything else, including even local peace groups.

Personally, I find many of the arguments in favor of controlled demolition not only plausible, but also likely.

Still, I have no doubt that all the infighting that is currently underway between sincere researchers on either side of that question is of great benefit to those directly involved in seeing to it that the "galvanizing event" of September 11, 2001 actually happened.
Eldritch
 
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Jeff » Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:02 pm

elfismiles wrote:
Did I ever mention here the bumper sticker I saw in North Austin stuck to a STOP sign .... ?

It read: "The 911 Truth Movement is an Inside Job"


No, but I want one!

MacCruiskeen wrote:If Cockburn, Corn, Kovics and their like keep saying "You kooks and hicks are too dumb for us to be seen dead with", then it is - to say the very least - pointless to complain when those untouchables turn to the likes of Paul and LaRouche.


First of all, his name's Rovics. And secondly, I think it's a strategic blunder to lump the Truth Movement's critics together, as though there is a single, and typically, psychological explanation for their perspectives. Rovics seems to feel obsession with demolition is a distraction from actionable crimes of state. Cockburn is an old school debunker and Corn is a CIA apologist who are both happy to hammer away at 9/11 Truth's weakest arguments while ignoring its strongest. And, IMHO, the Truth Movement's loudest and most insistent arguments are its weakest. That this is the case, as I see it, accounts to a large extent for my own criticism and suspicion of today's Truth.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby sunny » Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:09 pm

Eldritch wrote:Ha! I like the wit of that. :D

To a certain extent, I think it is undoubtedly true. That the 9/11 Truth Movement has been infiltrated by those who "let 9/11 happen" (or perpetrated it altogether) seems not only possible, but almost inescapable—considering the documented pattern of the intelligence community in infiltrating everything else, including even local peace groups.

Personally, I find many of the arguments in favor of controlled demolition not only plausible, but also likely.

Still, I have no doubt that all the infighting that is currently underway between sincere researchers on either side of that question is of great benefit to those directly involved in seeing to it that the "galvanizing event" of September 11, 2001 actually happened.


Oh, I'm convinced of CD beyond a doubt. But it is debatable in the absence of hard forensic evidence, which means it could go 'round and 'round for decades.

I'm also convinced of infiltration of the truth movement, but is that really worse than the numerous spooks who are inside the so called leftist gatekeeping force of pundits, opinion makers, reporters, bloggers, and so called anti-war activists? What we have here is a bunch of spooks arguing with each other and sincere people caught in the middle screaming "Stop the madness!!"
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Eldritch » Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:11 pm

Jeff wrote:Rovics seems to feel obsession with demolition is a distraction from actionable crimes of state.


Even though I think Rovics' overall tone does not help his case, I do think he's right on that point, even though I personally find much of the evidence in favor of controlled demolition, persuasive.
Eldritch
 
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Jeff » Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:26 pm

sunny wrote:I'm also convinced of infiltration of the truth movement, but is that really worse than the numerous spooks who are inside the so called leftist gatekeeping force of pundits, opinion makers, reporters, bloggers, and so called anti-war activists? What we have here is a bunch of spooks arguing with each other and sincere people caught in the middle screaming "Stop the madness!!"


Everyone needs to think for themselves. That's obvious enough, but in movements it's easy to surrender that privilege, because eventually you have to give up some autonomy to keep moving in the same direction. And if you don't, you become suspect to it. (For the good of the cause, don't ask questions, even if your first assumption was "question everything." Even if you're being marched over a cliff.)
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests