What can we cut?

What else can we cut to make our message leaner?

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 3:50:13 PM
 

IMO "there were no planes" is not prima facie irrefutable.

A lot of truthers get upset if you even suggest the idea. We can make it simpler still. We can say, irrefutably, that those videos broadcast by the media as authentic recordings of the plane crashes - some purportedly as being "live" broadcasts of the plane crashes - are fake, "cartoons", or, as a special FX expert called them, "bad special effects movies". I'm not saying there were no planes; I'm not saying Bush did it. All I am asking is why did the media broadcast fake videos when they were all there recording the whole thing and, if there were any passenger planes involved, there would have been non-fake videos a-plenty they could have broadcast.

Are there still people who think those were recordings of real planes crashing? A real plane, being made of aluminium, would have smashed to bits against the steel-lattice wall, and would likely have exploded.

By the way, I've had one guy explain to me, foam at the mouth, that what Larry Silverstein meant was an order to the firemen to "attach ropes to the roof of the building and to start pulling."

Sydney, Australia

by Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 159 comments) on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 3:09:02 AM
 

This is where it gets touchy with most...

Great comment, exactly what I am talking about in the sense that YOUR opinion and MY opinion on what happened is merely that, OUR opinions until appropriate and credible evidence is brought forward. Our opinions should never trump fact, especially when we are trying to enlighten and educate.

The facts surrounding WTC7 are enough for people to start questioning the official theory. The problem is - believe it or not, that MOST people I encounter from all parties, don't even know that a third tower came down that day.

Why wouldn't the truth movement as a whole surround themselves with the facts, push those facts and let their own theories and opinions sit idly by until later for the appropriate audience? Meeting someone that is willing to give you a few minutes of their time to listen isnt the time to break out the *Here is what I think happened...* bologna. All that can come later, whether from you or from their own research. We need only to stick to the facts to get them thinking and questioning on their own. The hurdle is, with limited time to make a solid point without conjecture or anything that teeters on the slippery slope, how does one say the right things in the right order with enough facts that people listen?

When I am out there in the street doing actions, I rarely discuss anything that comes from an alternative source. I use all the MSM because that is what the other side watches and listens to. There is enough in the MSM (although you have to dig for it) to support a new investigation. I don't need my sources to be questioned. The time it takes to defend someone like Alex Jones or someone of that ilk is a waste of precious time. The time it takes to argue whether Silverstien really said *Pull it* is a waste of time also IMO. Afterall, isn't the point to get them thinking, talking, asking questions of their own?

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 9:54:34 AM
 

WTC 7

Amazing but true:  most people don't even know that WTC7 came down that day.

I was glued to the tube all day, and yet that little occurence escaped my attention.  I only became aware of it some weeks later, and that awareness just hangs there.  What does it mean...what might it mean...what must it mean?

Lots of unanswered questions here. 

by B York (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 76 comments) on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 11:07:36 AM
 

Physically sickening implications...

Every citizen of this Country has a moral obligation to answer those very questions...and when they cannot answer them with factual data they need to step forward.

I don't know which was worse, the attacks on Sept 11th...or the hypnotized Nation that came of it.  

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 11:32:32 AM
 

your comment

in so few words you really said something profound...I stuck it in my sig line on my site...hope you dont mind...

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 11:39:33 AM
 

WTC7

In fact, that may be it. I've heard it said that WTC7 is the smoking gun. My wife, who is an American, recently went up to a well-known Australian political commentator at a book-signing recently and said: "Mr. Maher, did you know that a third building came down on 9/11"? "No, I didn't." "That building was brought down in a controlled demolition." "Rubbish!", the guy said, and walked away.

That may be it. Even if the person we're talking to doesn't know that a third building came down, that fact is easily checked. And if we then add that the official story is that that building came down because of sparks flying across and causing a fire, that should make the person stop and think.

For me the thing that started me thinking was that those buildings came down at free-fall speed.

Sydney, Australia

by Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 159 comments) on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 12:21:22 PM
 

more evidence

Giuliani told Peter Jennings on the air that someone told him (Giuliani) that he had to get out of there because the World Trade Center was going to collapse. Who told him that? Who could have known in advance?

Beside the question of WTC 7, where are the jet engines at the Pentagon? Why won't the FBI release the videos?

Fundamental questions have never been answered and now we have the CIA destroying tapes and impeding the 911 commission's investigation. With Bush's history of proven lies, these questions must be answered. I would think the Bush family would insist on it, if they were to claim to have any shred of honor. Oh yeah, by the way, what was GHW Bush doing in Dallas Nov. 22, 1963? And tell me why Prescott Bush was not prosecuted for supporting the Nazis after the outbreak of WWII?

If this is simply a case of the idle rich trashing a country dedicated to the people, all those who love the yet-unrealized idea of America must either defend our democracy or let it fail. Personally, I would be ashamed of letting a rich-boy jerk like W. mess with the greatness that is America and get away with it. The smirk has to go.

by martinweiss (9 articles, 3 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 184 comments) on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 10:51:01 PM
 

Congressman Waxman

Stay tuned, article pending. I attended a town hall meeting and we confronted Henry Waxman last night, on camera.

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 3:02:38 PM
 

Adding by subtracting... Isn't this newspeak from "1984"?

For what it matters and for those that truly care, enjoy the comments on the collapse of WTC 7 - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=43938 .

For those that have faith not in a Higher Power but in humanity's infinite evil, get in a congressman's face, disrupt a broadcast program, or get tasered for belligerence.  All of these actions work wonders for the 911Truthers' "cause".

Simply wanting a thing to be true doesn't make it true.

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1339 comments) on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 9:38:54 PM
 

Your angle is tiresome

By linking back (again) to the same tired article about NIST's inability to explain the collapses is ridiculous. Laziness and complacency could be the only reason someone would accept an explanation such as that.

WRT your comment to belief in a higher being...I would tread carefully if I were you. You know nothing of me and if you feel like generalizing a movement then do so without including me in your summaton. I am a Christian woman with much faith in my Higher Power. Trying to pull some sort of religion card doesn't work any more.

BTW, I notice you have 375 opinions on everyone elses opinions and yet not a free standing thought of your own...hmmm...

by Cheri Roberts-Piper (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 430 comments) on Saturday, December 29, 2007 at 12:08:24 PM
 

Has logic and reason left the 911Truther's Realm...?

"By linking back (again) to the same tired article about NIST's inability to explain the collapses is ridiculous. Laziness and complacency could be the only reason someone would accept an explanation such as that."

While the article was the link, the comments associated with the article were the explanations to the collapse of WTC 7. The use of the term "tired", as applied to a thought ,is reflective of your passions and emotions but not your application of the science – at least as it related to the structures' collapses. Why the reference to this article/comments as being ridiculous is lost on me, other than you've dismissed both because they don't fit your "version" of truth, which appears to mandate an acceptance of guilt by the Administrations before proving their innocence (which - if we're being honest here - will never be granted by a 911Truther because such innocence isn't in their range of possibilities).

Laziness and complacency... are the only reasons for accepting NIST's report of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2? HOW do you arrive at that conclusion? The NIST report is thoroughly-detailed, diligently-vetted, peer-reviewed, and accepted by the GREAT majority of architects and engineers the globe over as being the most likely reason for the collapses. What truth or knowledge – aside from a want – do you possess that could dismiss such professional (and lay also) acceptance of the NIST report?

Indeed, it is laziness and complacency to dismiss the link and NIST report as tired and ridiculous. I've noticed that you're searching for the truth but have found it necessary to discard the NIST report. I respectfully ask "why' must the report be discarded, and what do you have to offer that is a better explanation of the collapses BASED UPON a review of all the available evidence and NOT a want or need to disprove the "official government conspiracy theory"?

And explaining this discarding of the NIST report it in your own words is more desirable than repetition of another 911Truther's position - please.

"I would tread carefully if I were you. You know nothing of me and if you feel like generalizing a movement then do so without including me in your summaton. I am a Christian woman with much faith in my Higher Power. Trying to pull some sort of religion card doesn't work any more."

Thank you for the warning, but I tread where I must to assert a position – political correctness has no say or influence in matters of the truth. Too often it obscures or confuses the intent and meaning behind the assertion that only results in further misconceptions and increased disinformation. Additionally and as you pointed out to me but now in reverse, you know nothing of me; therefore, to claim if "I were you" rings of "hypocrisy", don't you agree?  And for the record, I do believe in a Higher Power that I choose to call God, but this is immaterial to our discussion.

My reference to what you've termed the "pull[ing] of some sort of religion card" is not the claim that the 911Truther Movement IS a religion but LIKE a religion – a subject for a possible Diary Entry because of your concern that I have, "[O]pinions on everyone elses [sic] opinions and yet not a free standing thought of your own." I may, on occasion, reveal an opinion when I comment by saying "I believe" or "I think", but the vast majority of my comments don't represent my opinions but rather my assertions of other probabilities.

If you think that commenting on an article, op-ed, or entry is on a level lower than authoring, then perhaps the comments section should be turned off at OpEdNews.com; unless, of course, you are proposing to filter the submitted comments so that they only align to the author's approval or liking. But this action would be somewhat hypocritical, as well, wouldn't it?

At day's end, with all these logical and practical quandaries, what's a Truther to do?

by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1339 comments) on Sunday, December 30, 2007 at 8:52:18 PM