Monday, March 10, 2008

9/11 discussion of basic facts, The "9/11 Truth Movement" is a cruel joke.

9/11 discussion of basic facts, the "9/11 Truth Movement" is a cruel joke.

Hello Diane,

Thank you for the reply. I hope this forum will be productive and will advance the cause of justice and security for all. I think this can be achieved if we discuss the facts and the issues. A quick point, I do think my gripe was justified, if you look at how the discussion of basic facts is handled, the unwillingness to discuss and the exclusion of the evidence which debunks their claims, this unreasonableness dominates their forums. I think you are trying too hard to find an excuse for the unreasonableness I have encountered several times. Did you see my e-mail exchange with Justin A. Martell, founder of Student Scholars For 9/11 Truth?

But let's get to the facts and issues. Thank you for taking note of some of the things I have written on my blog, I do plan to do justice to your post but I may not get to explore every point within this post, I plan to get to everything you mention, if not this post then a subsequent one.

You wrote, "We all can agree that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse was ridiculous." I agree. And when I say I agree, I mean that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse was ridiculous. And I assume you know that "we all"does not include all people and that not all people want this truth to be stated. And it should be pointed out that mainstream media caters to those who don't want to think the excuse is ridiculous or don't want others to think it is. And I should point out that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse is an excuse used to protect specific foreign policies from scrutiny, the excuse is not being used for no reason, the reason is to hide the real motives. Do you agree? Look at how pundits omit the specific foreign policies which terrorist themselves list as the reasons why they attack.

I would like to point out how sad it is that while "we all can agree that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse was ridiculous," we all can't get behind that as a point of discussion to demand that it be addressed in the public forum. If the "9/11 Truth Movement" is indeed a demand for truth, why isn't the very first rallying cry a demand that Bush stop lying about the motive for the attack? This is why it is so frustrating to see the "Truth Movement" doing what it is doing. I think you are ignoring my point about the damage this "Truth Movement" has done. You see their websites, they're not confronting Bush on his lying about the motive, they totally misdirect people away from the reality of what the attack was about! This is such a serious thing, this really is unfair. The constant refrain about an "official story," as if all politicians and people in government agree on what happened, totally ignores the fact that what Bush says and what the CIA, FBI and others say are not the same thing. The movement's constant refrain of "official story" is like a propaganda technique which suppresses the fact that Bush and the intelligence agencies are saying different things. The "9/11 Truth Movement" is a cruel joke.

And I want to point out that I didn't say that the "truth movement" was a conspiracy. I think most are independent people who mistakenly believe in a convoluted conspiracy theory and in doing so they unintentionally end up doing what the manipulative commissioners of the 9/111 commission did, cover-up the motives for the attacks. The frustrating thing is this is a life and death issue and I don't like what I see from some of the more vocal and persistent advocates, an immature unreasonable behavior (I will talk about the top ones soon, meanwhile see my blog comments on Griffin and Jones

I appreciate that you are trying to take a serious approach to this so we can end the corrupt political policies and that you're at least starting to take a critical look at the convoluted "controlled demolition" theory. You are being misled by people who are charlatans, con-men or fools. Their arguments are not rational nor scientific. For goodness sakes, Jones doesn't even understand the central basic fact about why the buildings failed, even though he has read what NIST has said.

There is no way around it, what he doesn't understand (and there is no good reason for not understanding it) is CENTRAL to why the buildings collapsed and it is backed up by evidence that he is ignoring either deliberately or out of incompetence. The man demonstrates clearly that he should not be writing a paper like this or be involved in any academic endeavors because if he can't understand what NIST is saying in their report, he has no right trying to write scientific papers. I don't know what the defect is with his mind but there is a problem of some sort, given the evidence he indicates he doesn't understand. It really is disgusting that his ignorance or deception has gone this far. Please read what I wrote at the link, I think it is cut and dry: Prof. Steven E. Jones and his 911 paper

Jones doesn't understand that the photographic evidence and eyewitness reports are of the bowing perimeter columns? After quoting this part of the NIST report, "To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports," Jones writes " [e.g., complete collapse occurred]" ( e.g. means "for example".) But Jones is totally wrong! NIST is NOT talking about "complete collapse" but rather is referring to the observable events BEFORE complete collapse! Jones has demonstrated that he is embarrassingly not fit to publish scientific papers.

And this kind of incompetence, misunderstanding or deliberate deception is what makes up the "9/11 Truth Movement." Why the hell can't the movement deal with the things we know? The 9/11 commissioners kept testimony out of the 9/11 Report because they didn't want the American people to reassess the policy of supporting Israel. This fact is admitted to in the Kean and Hamilton book. Why isn't the movement even touching that fact?

-Tom

7 comments:

Diane said...

Regarding Steven Jones, I've posted a comment here.

More later, on other topics you wrote about in your post above.

Note to other readers: Although he didn't link to it, Tom's post, above, was in reply to my Reply to Tom a.k.a. “Representative Press” on my blog.

To Tom: It would be nice if you could link to the things you're replying to.

Diane said...

In reply to Tom's very enlightening post SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks, I posted the following comment here.

I'll have more to say later, on other issues raised by Tom in the above post.

Diane said...

To Tom: In reply to your post about Justin Martell, I've posted a comment here. More later.

Diane said...

I've replied in a comment here to your post about WTC 7, Jones, and Griffin.

By the way, there's a bunch of spam comments on that page, which you might want to delete.

Diane said...

P.S. I wrote earlier: "Note to other readers: Although he didn't link to it, Tom's post, above, was in reply to my Reply to Tom a.k.a. “Representative Press” on my blog."

Looking again more closely, I see that Tom did link to my post after all.

Tom, I'm sorry I didn't see that the first time.

Anyhow, I'll be posting more later, in reply to your post above.

Diane said...

To Tom: Please see the latest post on my blog, Second reply to Tom a.k.a. “Representative Press”, especially the last section, Reply to Tom’s latest post. (The earlier sections of that post are copies of the comments I posted elsewhere on your blog earlier today, and to which I linked in comments above.)

Diane said...

To Tom: In reply to the comment you posted here on my blog, I just now posted To Tom: Michael C. Ruppert vs. “COINTELPRO Tool” on Afghanistan.