We Have Been Reduced To A Theory

[Gold9472]

We Have Been Reduced To A Theory

Jon Gold
8/9/2006

Has anyone noticed that the media likes to pounce on our theories? Everytime someone writes a "hit piece", they focus on two theories presented by the 9/11 Truth Movement:


The World Trade Center was brought down by Controlled Demolition.
The Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77.

In the early beginnings of this movement, certain facts stood out that made people question what really happened on 9/11.

Some of these facts include:


Excessive "put options" purchased on American and United days before 9/11.
A $100,000 wire transfer from the Pakistani ISI to Mohammad Atta.
The absence of our military.
The Secret Service not doing their job in regards to the President.
Warnings from 14 different countries about the impending attacks.
The August 6th, PDB.
Whistleblowers like Coleen Rowley, Robert Wright, and Sibel Edmonds.

Obviously, A LOT can be added to that list. The point in showing it to you is that each and every one of those facts are indisputable. You can't write a "hit piece" saying how crazy and nutty the 9/11 Truth Movement is because of that information. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any "journalist" write about that information.

Over the last few years, the movement has moved away from that information in favor of promoting our theories. We took it upon ourselves to figure out what happened on 9/11 because our Government wasn't willing to tell us. Some theories are more sound than others. In fact, World Trade Center 7 was most likely brought down by controlled demolition. If you look at the information Dr. Griffin, and Professor Jones bring to the table, it's very difficult to argue their conclusions.

However, as I said, Controlled Demolition is a theory. Professor Jones claims he has a piece of steel from the WTC that has traces of thermate, but until he can prove that conclusively, the idea of Controlled Demolition is still a theory.

You could come up with 1000 theories about what happened on 9/11, and never find out what happened, and have 1000 "hit pieces" written about you. Or, you could produce a few facts that conflict with the 9/11 Commission's report, and watch the fireworks fly.

Recently, it was discovered (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/washington/05norad.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) that "audiotapes provided to the commission by Norad demonstrated widespread confusion within the military on the morning of the attacks, with many air-defense commanders uncertain whether the reports of the hijackings were part of an unannounced military exercise."

That is conclusive proof that the Wargames that were taking place on 9/11 caused confusion on the ground. Add that to the fact that the 9/11 Commission didn't bother addressing the 5+ Wargames taking place that morning, and instead mentioned only 1 in a footnote in the back of the book. That is a verifiable "Cover-Up". Something tangible, and something proveable.

They laugh at our theories. They run away from our facts. Please keep that in mind.

[Gold9472]

I fully expect this article to piss a few people off. Sorry in advance.

[Bull]

We Have Been Reduced To A Theory

Has anyone noticed that the media likes to pounce on our theories? Everytime someone writes a "hit piece", they focus on two theories presented by the 9/11 Truth Movement:

The World Trade Center was brought down by Controlled Demolition.
The Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77.
In the early beginnings of this movement, certain facts stood out that made people question what really happened on 9/11.

Some of these facts include:

Excessive "put options" purchased on American and United days before 9/11.
A $100,000 wire transfer from the Pakistani ISI to Mohammad Atta.
The absence of our military.
The Secret Service not doing their job in regards to the President.
Warnings from 14 different countries about the impending attacks.
The August 6th, PDB.
Whistleblowers like Coleen Rawley, Robert Wright, and Sibel Edmonds.
Obviously, A LOT can be added to that list. The point in showing it to you is that each and every one of those facts are indisputable. You can't write a "hit piece" saying how crazy and nutty the 9/11 Truth Movement is because of that information. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any "journalist" write about that information.

Over the last few years, the movement has moved away from that information in favor of promoting our theories. We took it upon ourselves to figure out what happened on 9/11 because our Government wasn't willing to tell us. Some theories are more sound than others. In fact, World Trade Center 7 was most likely brought down by controlled demolition. If you look at the information Dr. Griffin, and Professor Jones bring to the table, it's very difficult to argue their conclusions.

However, as I said, Controlled Demolition is a theory. Professor Jones claims he has a piece of steel from the WTC that has traces of thermate, but until he can prove that conclusively, the idea of Controlled Demolition is still a theory.

You could come up with 1000 theories about what happened on 9/11, and never find out what happened, and have 1000 "hit pieces" written about you. Or, you could produce a few facts that conflict with the 9/11 Commission's report, and watch the fireworks fly.

Recently, it was discovered (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/washington/05norad.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) that "audiotapes provided to the commission by Norad demonstrated widespread confusion within the military on the morning of the attacks, with many air-defense commanders uncertain whether the reports of the hijackings were part of an unannounced military exercise."

That is conclusive proof that the Wargames that were taking place on 9/11 had something to do with the absence of our military. Add that to the fact that the 9/11 Commission didn't bother addressing the 5+ Wargames taking place that morning, and instead mentioned only 1 in a footnote in the back of the book. That is a verifiable "Cover-Up". Something tangible, and something proveable.

They laugh at our theories. They run away from our facts. Please keep that in mind.

I agree with you, and it reminds me of Football. When the team blitz's and gets burned on a pass. We're making up theories (some of them very weak...like Pods and Flight 93 landing in Cleveland), and getting burned in the media by hit peices. I don't mind controlled demolition, because that's obviously what brought down Building 7...and most likely what brought down the other buildings as well. Controlled Demolition is a solid theory, but I think sometimes in these interviews with people on TV...Truthers tend to go off topic and talk about things that aren't solid theories. I saw that the 9/11 book is pumping up the cruise missile being shot at the Pentagon as the sole explanation for 9/11 Truth concerning the Pentagon.

[Gold9472]

Facts aren't flashy. Thanks for signing up.

[ParallaxView]

I agree some theories/facts have been lost in the shuffle. When they write these 'hit pieces' they tend to choose the ones that sound ludicrous to the average joe in the street. For example the deriding of the Pod theory in the Popular Mechanics article.

I think that focusing on WTC7 and its collapse is a good way to introduce the average joe to the other theories and facts. It's funny that in most of the hit pieces and all the derision on Fox news they never seem to bring up WTC7.

[Gold9472]

I was actually referring to WTC7 when writing this. Is that all there is? WTC7? I think not.

[Gold9472]

I watch people on blogger when someone gets a TV appearance... "They'd better mention WTC7... if they don't mention WTC7, then they are suspect..."

If given a TV appearance, I could show complicity without mentioning the buildings or the Pentagon.

[Gold9472]

Somehow, that's been lost along the way. The Scholars have a lot to do with that.

[Bull]

Somehow, that's been lost along the way. The Scholars have a lot to do with that.

Then to, I think many people within 9/11 Truth have different opinions as to what happened and how. This is what creates differing arguments. We need a level-headed person in 9/11 Truth that can convey our feelings to America in a sincere way. Because THAT'S what's going to get more people to join us. I never liked the hardliner, aggressive, and somewhat knee-jerk approach to this movement. I've always told people, we need to be like Martin Luther King, not Malcolm X.

[Gold9472]

That's the thing... we have different opinions as to what happened and how, but we ALL agree that we have been lied to, and the ones who lied to us have benefitted the most from those lies. Why can't we focus on that? Some have said that I come across as sincere (which I am).

[Gold9472]

Don't you think it's strange that the only people getting on the mainstream are those people who focus on the Pentagon and Controlled Demolition?

[ParallaxView]

I think that those theories (The controlled demolition and Pentagon) are the theories that the average joe when presented with it is most likely to open their eyes to. Both theories have a quite heavy dependency on visual evidence.

Other theories such as phonecalls,the ISI connection etc require a more detailed knowledge. I see the controlled demolition and pentagon theories as gateways to the other theories.

[Gold9472]

I don't. I see Controlled Demolition, by itself, as one of those things that people think is crazy... "The buildings were brought down by Controlled Demolition... Response: You're crazy..." To say that something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon gets the same result.

I say to stick with the basics, and let them come to their own conclusions.

[Gold9472]

Or, just ask a VERY simple question. Why didn't Bush want to investigate 9/11?

[ParallaxView]

Oh I agree with the asking of one simple question can be effective too.Definitely.

[Chana3812]

Controlled Demolition and WTC7 - those are the two best issues for 9/11 Truth

[Gold9472]

Controlled Demolition and WTC7 - those are the two best issues for 9/11 Truth

Thanks for proving my point. ;)

[casseia]

Terrence over at 911blogger actually blew my mind this morning by posting a link to a pdf article at his otherwise repugnant site that argues carefully and substantively against controlled demolition in any of the 3 WTC buildings -- it's by a guy associated with Implosionworld (or something.) I'm not saying he convinced me, and the article does veer into strawman territory, but he raises issues that need to be addressed, or people really can look at you and say "You're crazy" when you mention CD.

Therefore, I find myself tending more and more toward the testimony-based evidence (which would include things like the NORAD failure.) I also think it would be good to really promote the Jersey Girls and other family members. I don't give a fuck if they're "just LIHOP."

[casseia]

Or even "just incompetence," I should have added. Who deserves a "full and complete accounting" more than people who lost family members?

[YouCrazyDiamond]

Jon, in about the fifth paragraph from the top, did you mean “… it's very difficult to argue against their conclusions?”

________________________________

I agree Jon: the ‘case’ for complicity involving people inside the USA in the events of 9/11 is (to any reasonable person) strong enough without the work on the ‘physics’ from people like Drs. Jones, Woods, etc.

Yet, it appears the work of the ‘9/11 Scholars’ has also made the ‘case’ even stronger.

And by ‘case’ we are simply requesting further investigations be conducted.

Albeit we now demand that ‘these’ investigations will be of a certain nature that is not likely to sit too well with those that appear to be working not just to obstruct and thwart them, but also to stop them from ever taking place.

Nonetheless, I would continue to work towards making ‘these’ investigations happen.

________________________________

Here is a commentary that compares the allocated resources and progress of various investigations in the USA in the last few generations.

http://www.unknownnews.net/030917a-hh.html

(I’ve not fact checked everything in this article, so I make no claims as to its correctness at this point in time. But I suspect it is reasonably accurate and I’d also expect there are many more such examples that could be explored, etc.)

________________________________

And now for some more speculations and perhaps ramblings on ‘theory’:

Shouldn’t there be some mechanism in our social institutions whereby, if we are to have a hierarchal structure of concentrated power at the ‘top’, that the people at the ‘bottom’ (as in underneath the ‘top’) can request and receive a stand down (as in a ceasing of work or activity; a standstill or halt.) order of the ‘top’?

And during such a stand down of the ‘top’ the ‘bottom’ would, at least in part, be allowed to seize all material evidence and undertake independent and ‘honest’ investigations, etc.

Personally, I could give a sh!t about the economy as compared to the loss of my liberties. The economy is a con game anyway, readily manipulated for good and/or bad outcomes.

My liberties on the other hand…

"Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings -- give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else! Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel."

-- Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

[Bull]

Terrence over at 911blogger actually blew my mind this morning by posting a link to a pdf article at his otherwise repugnant site that argues carefully and substantively against controlled demolition in any of the 3 WTC buildings -- it's by a guy associated with Implosionworld (or something.) I'm not saying he convinced me, and the article does veer into strawman territory, but he raises issues that need to be addressed, or people really can look at you and say "You're crazy" when you mention CD.

Therefore, I find myself tending more and more toward the testimony-based evidence (which would include things like the NORAD failure.) I also think it would be good to really promote the Jersey Girls and other family members. I don't give a fuck if they're "just LIHOP."

Do you have the link?

[Bull]

I don't. I see Controlled Demolition, by itself, as one of those things that people think is crazy... "The buildings were brought down by Controlled Demolition... Response: You're crazy..." To say that something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon gets the same result.

I say to stick with the basics, and let them come to their own conclusions.

People only think that when they don't know the Physics and History of it all. The prevalent theory right now is the "Total Progressive Collapse..."

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/progressive.html

Now, in order for Progressive collapse to work properly, the building needs to be built in layer form...else, it probably wouldn't collapse this way. None of the WTC buildings were built in layer form. Not to mention, there are scant, rare instances of a Total Progressive Collapse ever even taking place.

Not to mention that, again, we have Building 7. The only explanation to what happened there comes from the NIST Report. They say it was a combination of debris and fire (fire that set off fuel tanks) that brought down the building. Now first, I'll ask you...do you actually think these contractors would be paid multi-million dollars to build a structure that could be brought down by mere debris? If that's the case, give me the million dollars and I can build it. Building 7 was housing offices for the Secret Service, FBI (and some other government groups). Then you have the fire...now all we know is that there was fire in the building...but they were pocket fires. There is no evidence of any widespread fire in Building 7. Pocket fires don't bring down buildings either, not to mention you have the Madrid building that burned for a whole day...and it didn't fall (and that building was lit up like a Christmas tree). Then people don't realize that NIST even took a huge leap of faith to come to their conclusion about the fuel tanks. Again, we have no evidence that fire even made it way there...and neither does NIST. Which makes their opinion nothing more than a theory.

Now, let's say hypothetically that the tanks did blow. Would that have brought down Building 7? No. Why? Because in order for a building to fall in a uniform fashion (all at one time) you need the structural "pressure points (I like to call them that)" to go offline at the same time! This is how buildings are demolished. If that doesn't happen, then the building would just fall in sections (which, by the way, is how most buildings fall). Building 7 is the biggest lightening rod because there was nothing substancial to bring it down the way it did. I'm not saying debris didn't hit the building...it did...but debris hit other buildings around the Twin Towers as well. There was even a building closer to one of the Towers than Building 7 was...and it still stands to this day! Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing. There was a big gash in the front of that building where the bomb went off...did that building fall? No.

Which is why people claim controlled demolition (not even mentioning Larry Silverstein).

[Gold9472]

:) Bull... you don't have to convince me my friend. I've been around the block.

[YouCrazyDiamond]

Do you have the link?

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

And the pdf can also be found in a link on this page under the title "READ IMPLOSIONWORLD'S PAPER ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE'S":

http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1

____________________

I’ve read through about half of the article and I’m not convinced. In fact I’m rather disappointed that they appear to be contributing to the confusion and lies.

But I will very likely continue to read through it with a critical eye, as I attempt to do with most such articles.

[casseia]

Yes, but definitely read it for yourself, Bull.

I think I could do a fairly decent job of picking it apart just on the level of rhetoric, without a lot of physics, but someone who understands some of the technical stuff would be able to critique it well.

I even downloaded the thing -- being connected to that website makes me feel dirty.

[Bull]

Yes, but definitely read it for yourself, Bull.

I think I could do a fairly decent job of picking it apart just on the level of rhetoric, without a lot of physics, but someone who understands some of the technical stuff would be able to critique it well.

I even downloaded the thing -- being connected to that website makes me feel dirty.

I'll admit, Physics is not my field (even though I will read it). I was asking because there's this site called Abovetopsecret.com and it's basically a COINTELPRO site (or the biggest gatekeeper forum on the web). Anyway, on that site there's this thread that's over a 150 pages now debating how a 757 DID hit the Pentagon! The threadstarter was a member named Catherder (not that I know him or post there...but this is what's from the link I'm about to post) who is backed by the mods...and his intro was very thought out, very smart-SOUNDING, and believable to the common reader. Well, the link below just blows it out of the water and shows how full of it the thread starter was. I mean, the Truther made his own site and everything.

http://abovetopsecret.narod.ru/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

EDIT: The site takes a while to load up.

[PhilosophyGenius]

I look at 9/11 like pieces of a puzzle, if you dont have all the pieces you can't see the whole picture. And if you look at just the pieces, you won't see the picture; in regards to 9/11 each piece itself can be rebutted. So if you can't show someone all the pieces at once you gotta show the biggest pieces which just so happens to be the WTC and Pentagon hole.

Goes back to the classic pole on this site:
http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6782