The Three Stages of Truth

http://www.rense.com/general70/tjere.htm

The eventual collapse of a great lie resembles the infamous collapse of an obscure 47-story building that few ever saw. When a great fiction falls, formerly accepted as a great historical fact, the collapse resembles a controlled demolition masquerading as a natural event.

Great lies have the burden of truth pressing upon them, constantly, incrementally, compounding weight like interest. Truth crushes the lie slowly and then the resounding crash occurs suddenly. Years later, students will laugh and wonder how anyone could ever be so stupid as to believe a discredited lie.

"All truth passes through three stages," wrote Schopenhauer. "First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
...
Possessing only limited resources, 9-11 theorists like Hufschmid, Hoffman, Tarpley, Griffin and Jones have shown great scientific ingenuity. The next wave will consist of engineers, mechanics, chemists and architects who will go beyond trial and error methods and dare to contradict the official but biased scientific data.
...
Researchers and investigators of the 9-11 Truth Movement, by painstaking analysis (almost always without pay), prove them wrong incrementally. One day in the future, students of physics and engineering will shake their heads and titter in classrooms. How could those so-called experts in the early 21st century have ever believed two fragile aluminum airplanes could utterly destroy seven stout steel skyscrapers? That is the question they will ask their professors.

The common accusation leveled against those of us highly skeptical of the government liturgy of the 9-11 attack, is that we somehow "demean" the memory of the victims. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The greatest homage to truth is to use it, said Ralph Waldo Emerson. Only a fool accepts half-truths, pseudo-science, government propaganda, media sound bites, factoids, planted evidence, faked testimony and paid expertise as "Truth." We do not find those truths to be self-evident, except of criminal complicity.
...
I predict, one day, greed will be the ultimate undoing of the 9-11 conspirators. Greed and duplicity, as lies constrict and strangle the liars who told them. We are only in the late First Stage of Truth; do not lose hope.

TUESDAY ~ April

TUESDAY ~ April 18th

Professor Jim Fetzer:
Moussaoui + 9-11 Petition

http://www.wingtv.net/todaysshow/humancheck_check.php

"The illogical collapse of

"The illogical collapse of three steel skyscrapers is a historical fact, for now. The cause of the collapse has been determined, in the judgment of university professors and structural engineers, as caused by fire. An historical and scientific fact."

Is there anyone here who doesn't know that this statement is a pure and blatant falsehood?

Show your hands.

Fine article on BUZZFLASH!

Fine article on BUZZFLASH! In part:
"When the truth is known, Americans will finally have to face the fact that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a few other select conspirators knew about the attacks of 9-11-01 before they happened. That the dumb look on George's face when Andrew Card whispered the news in his ear reflected his guilt for being complicit in the deaths of more than 3000 innocent people. 9-11 was Bush's Pearl Harbor. He no doubt believes that it was a small price to pay for a good excuse to attack the Mideast. No, it makes no sense to me either."...
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/04/con06149.html

"The illogical collapse of

"The illogical collapse of three steel skyscrapers is a historical fact, for now. The cause of the collapse has been determined, in the judgment of university professors and structural engineers, as caused by fire. An historical and scientific fact."

I guess you'd better tell that to Larry "pull-it" Siverstein.

Note the words "for now"...

Note the words "for now"...

How fast and hard the stages

How fast and hard the stages are reached makes all the difference.

The one common pattern that I've been able to notice amongst all the disinformation campaigns which pervade the 911 truth movement (sic) is to steer people away from the recognition of the full scale and scope of The Big Lie. (Because that might cause too many of We The People to awaken, suddenly, angrily...)

As one example, much resources are used to keep people from recognizing that the reported hijacked civilian Boeing passenger airliners are not what hit the buildings (Naudet Video and Pentagon Video Frames [equally ignored by the 9-11 Commission and 911citizenswatch!] are the only visuals we have of the 1st and 3rd impacts, and each refutes the government's "plane theory"!!! Therefore it is in the lying government's interest that we disregard those visuals. And, if you bother to look around and notice, you'll see that that's exactly what the bulk of the national 911 truth movement [sic] has accomplished! What a 'coincidence', eh?).

The fact that so much of the 911 truth movement (sic) not only does not encourage but actively discourages cutting-edge thoughts and accompanying logical discussion should tell you something about its coercive nature and its suppression of ideas and evidence. (Some of its participants can prove that we cannot blame the "collapses" on "airplanes", yet insist that we can take the government's word for what struck the buildings, even as they themselves untruthfully suppress the contrary evidence.)

______________________________________ http://911u.org/CoDR/graphics/2heads,sameMonster.gif

"Not one single structural

"Not one single structural engineer in the United States disagrees with the official cause of destruction. Not one."

I'll show you Terrence...

I just sent this email out to a lot of structural engineer organizations...

To Whom It May Concern,

You may or may not know, but a Professor of Physics from BYU by the name of Steven E. Jones has recently come out to say that he thinks a form of explosives was used to bring down the World Trade Center. I was wondering if there were any structural engineers among you who would like to agree/disagree with this hypothesis. Any help or assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely Yours,

Jon Gold

Articles of Reference:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635198488,00.html
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

Professor Jones' Paper, "Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Collapse?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Here's a movie the Professor has appeared in called, "9/11 Revisited":
http://www.911revisited.com/

Here is the original presentation he gave on February 1st of this year:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Steven_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006/BYU_Professor_Steven_E_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006_911_9-11_Lecture_WTC-7_911TruthSeekers.org.wmv

So :P

Jon, The engineers. Of

Jon,
The engineers.

Of course a year from now you are going to have a surplus of engineers who "knew all along it was a lie". One thing that helps me to see through the lies is my good liberal education. I had Jim Fetzer as a philosophy professor. You might know Jim. In his class I learned that “The best theory of philosophy is to treat everyone with respect”. I have a degree in computer science. However, this philosophy makes me a ‘real’ engineer as much as anything.

And of course this is the real problem with all this. The problem is the lack of respect for engineers and scientists. This administration has always hated us. But once we start to rally and a few of us stand up others will follow. Real engineers are leaders sometimes and frequently good followers too.

So my point is if you want to find some good engineers you might try the University of Minnesota, Duluth. Ask for Jim Fetzer.

Of course to be the first

Of course to be the first certified working structual engineer that stands up for the truth. That will take more guts than I have.

Bravo Jon, with a little

Bravo Jon, with a little encouragement maybe we can get them to come out of the woodwork.

Denial is not a river in

Denial is not a river in Eqypt.

I made a T-Shirt with my ink jet printer and avery t-shirt transfer ink jet paper.

I'm not an artist so it just says, "911 - Inside Job?".

It will start the conversation when you're at the park hangin' out with the dog people.

Personally I don't think

Personally I don't think we've been in the first stage of "the three stages of truth" for a while. A few years ago any mention of US Government complicity in 9/11 was ridiculed and that was the end of the conversation.

Currently there are some people that still "violently oppose" discussion. Think of the trolls that still show up with nothing helpful to say, just trying to disrupt.

However this past month, I've noticed many many people are jumping straight to the third stage of being self evident. This is where I am currently focusing my efforts.

My favorite way is to present photographs of the explosion that preceded the fall of the North Tower. If anyone looks at these pictures it is obviously an explosion and a very large one at that. Then provide the easily verifiable information that this explosion took place well after all the jet fuel had burned away and ask "What caused this explosion?"

It's obvious to anyone that the explosion was massive, most are now able to see it. This allows people to jump straight to the "third stage", the truth is self evident.

I propose that we're actually in early stage 3.

If anyone wants higher res versions of the pictures linked here as my home page, just use the contact/about page of the hosting domain. The original captures were 11Mb+ very hi res.

___________________________________
All that and there's absolutely no need to resort to explanations involving unfamiliar/obscure technology :-P

Bozo, you are now an artist.

"I just sent this email out

"I just sent this email out to a lot of structural engineer organizations..."

Don't edit the responses. They'll all be a hoot.

"Is there anyone here who

"Is there anyone here who doesn't know that this statement is a pure and blatant falsehood?"

Hearing no response, I'll take it you all know that statement is a blatant falsehood.

Except Anonymous, of course.

All you have to do now is make it clear to readers that you don't believe the author of the article.