The Battle for Belief : A Sociologists Research in 9/11 Argumentation — by Michael Armenia

"Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas Jefferson


We are at war, and one of the most critical and dangerous frontline is not in Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran. Rather, it is the battleground within the human psyche. Individual and collective minds are waging psychological warfare in what promises to be one of the most intense struggles in American history, if not all of human history. How do we communicate the truth about the events of 9/11 to those who have been deceived by the operation and its cover-up in the media? Are logic, reason, and science enough?

In the "battle for belief", Person A offers truth demonstrating reality while Person B, knowingly or unknowingly, transmits lies and perpetuates myth. At the end of the day, the one with the most credibility wins. This much is supposed by Dr. Mark Jones, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Sociology at Colorado College, who is embarking on a research project to study how both sides of a controversial issue communicate their ideas.

With a disciplinary specialty in the sociology of science and technology, Dr. Jones states that researchers in his field "frequently conduct studies of scientific controversies, instances in which different groups in the sciences, or in engineering — often competitors — disagree on facts, interpretations and explanations of facts, and legitimate methods of inquiry and evaluation." He continues, "Sociological studies show that scientific and technical controversies are never settled by facts, because the facts never speak for themselves," and, "Credibility establishes authority and the power to define what will count as truth or error."

On one side of the technical issue at hand, there exists a growing movement to reveal the truth about 9/11 by a presentation of clear scientific facts. On the opposing side, the official conspiracy theory etched in soapstone by the 9/11 Commission is defended by subsequent pseudo-scientific reports from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). A lack of published refutations in mainstream media makes it blatantly obvious that an effort is afoot to curtail any public challenge of these "authoritative" perspectives.

There is ample evidence supporting the hypothesis that the destruction of three WTC buildings was brought about by controlled demolition, planned and prepared prior to 9/11. The NIST reports focused only on the period of time up to the "initiation" of the collapses, committing numerous breaches of scientific standards. NIST's engineers never even looked for evidence of explosives residue in the dust, and ignored the features of the destruction itself that pointed to explosives. That their "investigation" was dishonestly selective is immediately clear from the ejections visible in the numerous corroborating videos of the destruction, as well as its speed and symmetry. Any sensible forensic investigation should have started with controlled demolition as the most plausible hypothesis.

Common sense begs the question, "Why is this not obvious to the casual observer?" Clearly, what is driving this controversy is not evidence or the lack thereof. Something other than factual information is driving the outcome. Therefore, in asserting controlled demolition, a defense against the propagation of the official myth must be utilized in the presentation. At the same time, an offensive strategy must employ tactics to conquer the fear, denial, and overweening respect for authority in the minds of those still clinging to the myth.

As Dr. Jones claims neutrality, he plans to study both sides of the issue. He writes, "My approach would be to analyze this controversy, not by advocating for one side or the other, but by examining the ways in which both sides mobilize facts, justify interpretations, adopt rhetorical strategies, and develop strategies in struggles for credibility." Jones plans to narrow his focus on WTC 7, for example, selecting perhaps three major points of contention between experts from both sides. In addition, he will incorporate and publish biographical sketches of the persons involved, in an attempt to establish credibility. He will also examine the role of the media, insofar as what technical information is highlighted or omitted and how it all is framed.

Anyone interested in participating is invited to contact: Mark Jones, Ph.D., Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Colorado College, 14 E. Cache La Poudre St., Colorado Springs, CO 80903, (830) 719-5144,

I think I know why most people reject 9/11 truth.........

After several years of studying the reactions of friends and acquintences when shown the evidence of 9/11 truth, I have come to some conclusions about why they reject it.

I think the average American just simply won't believe something this big that the media will not also show them. They get their information from the media. They are used to getting their news and analysis, and having the media do all the work for them. And although they complain about media bias, on the biggest issue, they believe the press.

During the WMD push for war in Iraq, the msm and some of the alternative media followed the ridiculous line that Saddam had massive power and could destroy us. Many experts refuted this, but they were kept off the msm shows. The whole "debate" was framed so that really liberal, extremist people were somewhat unsure that Saddam had WMD, while moderates KNEW he did. The msm manufactured all of that, the information, the framing. They got their data from the Pentagon, but they presented it in ways that the average American could digest. I remember my friends completely unable to accept that I might be right when I said that most evidence shows that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Facts didn't matter. They KNEW, because the media told them. Even though it actually made little sense, and sometimes the propaganda was almost laughingly amateurish and almost childish, because it came from their most respected sources of news, they could believe nothing else.

The same is going on with 9/11 truth. The vast majority of Americans simply hear nothing about the reality of 9/11, and constantly have heard the official story. When you tell them that this is all lies, they laugh. They laugh because they "KNOW" that if there were a big story here, with all of the political antagonism and competition, there CERTAINLY would be some journalist ready to take it all on, bring the facts to light, and make a great name for himself. Just think of it.............the newspaper who would present this, one of the biggest stories of all time, certainly would do it if it really was a story that could hold up to scrutiny.
Because no venue will do it, they "know" 9/11 truth has to be bogus. The media, they think, with all of its competing companies, could not possibly all work together to shut down a HUGE pile of facts. And so they just won't put their precious time into studying any of it. They listen a bit, and then something in their brain tells them, "no, all of the media could not lie about this".

9/11 truth immediately is placed in a folder in their brain: whacko stuff. It is filed with moon landing deniers, pyramid power, holocaust deniers, UFO's. And they just don't have the time and energy to put into it. And so their reaction may be to laugh, or to ignore it, or politely say a few words and then ignore it.

My conclusion: we will get nowhere until the media, maybe first the alternative media sites, begin to regularly present the very most basic facts and truths of that day of horror, the contradictions, the PROOFS. I think, personally, that the official theory collapse of the WTC is the mostly easily proven to be a false story. The nanothermite, the free fall speed, the molten metal, etc, is impossible to logically refute. If this were presented in several media venues, over time, I think it would get the ball rolling.
But the alternative media have refused to do their part. They do not do the honest and responsible thing. I'm sure a lot of the journalists and editors realize there are really obvious lies in the official story, but they just won't go there. I don't know if it is pressure, threats, big money bribes from foundations, whatever..............but the only stories our once treasured alternative press will give to 9/11 truth are stories that insult the 9/11 truth movement. Alternet, Counterpunch, CommonDreams, DemocracyNow, the Nation, Mother Jones,, and so many other sites have all treated the facts and evidence of 9/11 the same.............ignoring it, sometimes insulting the movement. And of course the msm won't touch it.
To me this is criminal. It is conspiratorial. It approaches real treason. And, of course, unethical journalistically.

I don't know how to change the status quo on this. Time is passing by. Maybe we should demonstrate not against big federal agencies or big corporations, but in front of Democracy Now and Rolling Stone and the Nation and MotherJones publishers. I go onto Alternet everyday and present 9/11 information in the comment sections, and imploring the writers to break the censorship and present the obvious and overwhelming evidence of 9/11 truth. The trolls come in and attack me viciously, and Justin Holland, a senior editor and writer, insults me and the movement. Too is a good venue and should be on the side of 9/11 truth. But the same is going on with all of the other well read alternative sites and outlets.

I think that 9/11 truthers who are in a position to know some journalists and publishers should try to find out just why these people have locked out the truth. I don't think they are ignorant of it all. I think there is fear..........fear of losing a career path, fear of losing readership, fear of reprisals from those who would suffer from the truth, fear of losing foundational support, and even fear of physical or bodily harm. But I just don't know. I wish I did. I wish I had some indication of just why our news, all of it, has censored the truth.

I really believe that until my friends and family and associates read 9/11 truth in their newspapers and magazines, or watch it on tv, they will continue to laugh at us, or ignore us, when we present them with 9/11 truth.
The time is passing by.
Something has to change.

excellent observations

Thank you, pfgetty for your perceptive observations. I still wonder why more people aren't getting their news from the internet when pretty much everyone has access now. My first exposure to the truth was online when I searched for the story of the black boxes being found, which I figured must had been reported and I had only missed it.

I guess not everyone is as curious. I also like to read and debunk pseudoscience for amusement, and that's what I figured I was doing when I first read about controlled demolitions.

Joshua Holland?

Joshua Holland or Justin Holland?


My 70 Disturbing Facts About the 9/11 Attacks piece has gotten some good feeback over the years:

It is a bit unwieldy though, and takes a few minutes to get through.

Focusing on the statements of WHISTLEBLOWERS from the FBI, who had first hand inside information is one good strategy to establish credibility. Just show the statements of people like:

Colleen Rowley
Harry Samit
Sibel Edmonds
Robert Wright
Thomas Pickard (acting FBI Director!)
John O'Neill

Senator Bob Graham also spilled some beans:

"High officials in [the Saudi Arabian] government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and wellbeing of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practise and then execute the tragedy of September 11."

There are many other statements and indisputable facts that paint a very dark picture of the "official" story.


I think

this is very important research.