The effectiveness of 911 truth in achieving change.

I would suggest that many people devote their interests to 911 truth because they see it as having the potential to change the way we are governed. We believe that 911 was a criminal deception designed to justify war , imperialism and the curtailing of civil rights. We have no prospect of change through a co opted political system that totally ignores the evidence of the 911 truth movement, and the current mainstream media has censored or misrepresented any evidence that the official explanation of 911 is a lie.

Jon Gold has suggested a dwindling interest in 911truth, citing for example the fact that the NYC CAN march only attracted 150 people compared to thousands previously. He suggests that the reason for this, is the perception that 911truth is synonymous with a CD (controlled demolition) only argument, and that we have to change the way we are perceived and change the focus of 911truth away from CD towards a selection of diverse evidence instead.

I agree with many others that 911 truth should include diverse evidence and areas of investigation, but am concerned that the selection process of what other evidence should be promoted instead of CD is not critical enough regarding the potential that other evidence has to effect change.

For example , drawing attention to the fact that Atta allegedly received $100,000 from Pakistan’s ISI shortly before 911 suggests implicitly that Atta , Muslims, and Al Qaida were al least partly responsible for 911, something that has yet to be proven to me. By choosing to promote this information, you actually reinforce the premise of the Official Theory (OT) that Al Qaieda were responsible.

If any ‘selection’ or prioritization of evidence is actually necessary, (rather than letting people decide for themselves and research and promote what areas they find to be most valuable) surely the most important factor is the question of how damaging the evidence is to the OT along with analysis of how solid the evidence actually is.

Before I expand on this further, I have to say that a call for diversity is one thing, but to actually repeatedly spread unsubstantiated ideas like “‘You have to be an engineer or physicist to understand CD evidence”’, or “CD evidence is not as valuable or conclusive as you might think”’ or "Controlled Demolition is a HARD pill for MANY people to swallow” is another thing entirely. This sort of claim has to be highly scrutinized , because rather than encouraging diversity it is actually calling into question the value of the work of David Ray Griffin and AE911truth, who I would suggest have done more than anyone else in challenging the OT, and importantly, changing the damaging perception portrayed in the MSM that the 911truth movement is a bunch of dysfunctional nut jobs. DRG is very clear that there is no ambiguity in the conclusiveness of CD evidence .

The main point I am trying to make is ‘What is the most effective way to achieve change?’. Evidence that the government were negligent on 911 is at best going to achieve a ticking off or two but it wont change anything. Particularly it will do nothing to highlight the part of the MSM in the cover-up, because they have to some extent covered these issues already.

To achieve actual change we must be more ambitious. The fact that MSM and the political parties have ignored credible evidence for 911 criminality within the administration, along with their easily demonstrated cover up and propaganda tactics is actually an opportunity.
By promoting evidence that suggests US criminality and cover up in the act, the realization that this evidence has not been reported to us, is a real eye opener as to what the extent of the problem is and that substantial change is essential.

Maybe we should consider that if one person in 10 realizes the extent of the problem and is motivated to try and change a corrupt system, It could actually be more beneficial than 3 people in 10 asking for a reinvestigation into unexplained 911 anomalies?.

I make no suggestion here that these following evidence points are valid, and would defer to the consensus and analysis of the movement to show what is the most valuable evidence, but for example:

The information that WTC complex was an inefficient asbestos ridden white elephant and NY Port authority had been denied permission to demolish the towers on several occasions prior to 911, and were facing a $1.5 Billion bill to dismantle them brick by brick because of the risks to public health though demolition. Pyroclastic flow of dust during collapse. The convenient loss of evidence of 100 high level corporate fraud investigations in WTC7. Impossibility of calls made from the allegedly hijacked planes, etc

Don’t attack my premise based on the conclusiveness of evidence regarding these examples, as I said I trust the movement to do that, but these examples (if true) would be more effective and motivational to people concerned with change than for example evidence that ‘Usama bin laden is or was dead on 911’, or that ‘Bush was more popular after 911’.

Other than the tactic of raising awareness, I have seen no discussion anywhere about what can be done to effect the change I assume we seek. If there is a dwindling interest in 911 truth, (though I don’t personally believe there is) then it is more likely to be around the perception that the movement has no where else to go than where it is already. Whilst awareness is still of immense importance and much has yet to be achieved, there are some people who will never support it for varying reasons, and so I don’t accept that we will ever necessarily reach a tipping point whereby if enough people know, something will happen.

I tried to suggest that the movement could progress to a political force through a 3rd party commenting on this article , but was bombarded with the opinion that ‘911truth is a political Taboo’ and of ‘too high strangeness’ to be of any value politically.

I questioned the value of an article that seemed to reinforce the OT, but was told I should concentrate on areas where I agree with the OT as a starting point to awareness.

I was told here That CD is not as valuable or conclusive as I think it is.

If I have just had a bad run that is not representative of the majority of opinion here, then I am sorry if I have turned my frustration into being argumentative. I do not want to be divisive. However, if my experience is indicative of a shift towards ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’, then this site will no longer have any relevance for me.

On first reading

I agreed with everything you said.

First of all...

I highly recommend you read this from beginning to end (it's obvious you haven't) because there is more than enough information to suggest that Atta, hijackers, and "Al-Qaeda" were involved in the attacks. Either as patsies or as full fledged hijackers, but information exists nevertheless. Secondly, you make it seem like I think promoting the $100,000 wire transfer to Atta (which is not alleged) being ordered from Ahmed (alleged, but more than enough information exists that suggests it's true) should take the place of Controlled Demolition (much like some individuals I know, but they refer to it as "porkchop transfer"... do you know them?), and that is simply not the case. Instead, I have said on multiple ocassions that I think in order for people to start demanding a real investigation, you must first show them that the ones we received were a farce.

Like I said here...

Here's another example of that.

I have also said that people should stick to basics. I have also pointed to the concerted effort (that Mike Ruppert confirmed) to make 9/11 Truth synonymous with Controlled Demolition, while at the same time saying that I think they are right, but that because it is such a BIG LIE more people will believe it.

I have also said that we would be a helluva lot more successful today if we were synonymous with supporting the 9/11 families, with supporting the 9/11 first responders, and ending the horror that is the "Post-9/11 World" instead of "Controlled Demolition," and "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!"

I also suggest you read this. Someone else who noticed the "concerted effort" I spoke of. Notice the part where he says...

New Truth is now 100% Jihadist free. Something less than 100% would be true enough, and would have served as a corrective to the official comic book which informs Americans that their enemy has dark skin and strange beliefs. But entirely erasing bin Laden and al Qaeda from the 9/11 equation makes no more sense - not even polemical sense - than trying to talk sensibly about the JFK assassination without mention of the Mafia or the anti-Castro Cubans.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Jon sorry, but you seem to

Jon sorry, but you seem to have entirely missed my point(s).

I know Atta is involved , but does it not make any difference to you if he is a patsy or a hijacker? I am totally convinced based on what I have seen (a lot) that Atta was a patsy.

If he was, then what have you achieved by choosing to highlight the fact that he recieved ISI money? Unless the recipient goes into great detail to explore the nuances of Atta's involvement, the only thing you have done is reinforce the OT that Atta was a terrorist and responsible for 911. There is no reason why this information supporting the OT should inspire anyone to get on board 911truth.
That is not to say that people should not research Atta, If anyone can prove he is a patsy then that would be very useful info. But in its current state,what can you hope to achieve by including this random piece of information in your selection of 'the 50 most important things people should know about 911' ? because it is unlikely to inspire anyone to try and change the world is it? in fact it is more likely to do the opposite.

Once and for all, (and I have said it in every single comment I have made) I agree with diversity I think most people do. Of course you can find links to people who think the movement is hijacked by Cd but that is not the point. The point is that many people KNOW that the CD evidence is totally conclusive in a way that any testimony based yarn will never be that is why they are convinced of its importance in a way you dont seem to be. The further point I made in my article is that this is also much more USEFUL material than a lot of other subjects, because it suggests the scale of the criminality within the Administration that we are dealing with here, demonstrates the part the media had played in the scam, and therefore if you manage to impart this info to someone you are likely to get a person who is motivated into changing the system rather than signing a petition for a reinvestigation. Do you see what I am saying? It is like a higher stakes strategy for a higher reward (Potential Change) BIG LIE ? Well… the upside is …the harder they come the harder they fall!

You say that you accept Cd as valued evidence that should be accompanied by other evidence (So do I) but do you not see that the comments you have said recently : “‘You have to be an engineer or physicist to understand CD evidence”’, or “CD evidence is not as valuable or conclusive as you might think”’ or "Controlled Demolition is a HARD pill for MANY people to swallow” is undermining that evidence you say you support? Why would you do this?

I know that you have done loads to support the families and responders. However there is a trap I have seen many times in anti truth propaganda, and that is that they will always find a family member who believes the OT, and thinks you are evil by saying you represent them. That is pretty catastrophic for your argument . You have to be careful to avoid any suggestion that you or we represent ALL the families, and responders.

Personally I would go further, and mention the families of the 1,000,000 dead in the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even more importantly, the millions who are likely to die unless this insane cabal (and the media who enable them) are stopped.

Once again, of course 911 is not Muslim free, in case you did not notice, they were the ones blamed for the whole atrocity. However I have yet to find ANY conclusive evidence that they were responsible, (except as you yourself said in your facts -extracted under torture).
You might also have said that it is widely accepted that torture is not that effective in extracting info people don’t have, but it is very useful in making them admit to things they never did.

Think above all else, if you have to prioritize evidence, then ask What evidence is most likely to effect change? That is the evidence that will be the most effective, assuming that change is what you desire.

Many thanks for your

sincere and courageous reflections.

I don't know. I just don't know.

But I really appreciate your taking the time and effort to share what you did.

I'm going to think more about it and will post again if I come with anything worthy.

Many are asking the same questions

NYC CAN indicated that it was looking to change its strategy to focus on material that was more "fact" based, such as the glaring inconsistencies and mistruths in the 9-11 Commission Report.

As far as the money paid to Ata, Gul was asked about it, and I believe he denied that it was sent, or at least he denied that who ever allegedly sent it, ever sent it. Please check me on that. Gul is among the first to call 9-11 an inside job in his interview with de Borchgrave. It is extremely embarrassing to find out that some "facts" that are often bandied about are not as ironclad as they may seem. This makes one suspect that other "facts" are not as reliable. Perhaps what is needed is better sourcing.

The coverup and the impossibility of getting information from the government that would answer one's concern seem to be the most ironclad. I am highly skeptical that they identified all the genetic material of the passengers on flight 77, but I have not investigated it in detail. It just seems so absurd. The two bandanas recovered, that is another one, along with the passports, etc.

In terms of CD, there is still a long way to go to make the arguments factual and intelligible to a more widespread audience, which rightly understands that the collapse of a building is complex, and that it is not easy to draw a judgment about it. I would focus on what global collapse means, and what kind of structures are actually subject to global collapse, and then look at the World Trade Center towers, and see if they are such structures. A detailed cross-section of what holds the towers together, ought to elucidate this subject. I have read Gordon Ross's work, which I find to be the best so far on the subject. But his detailed calculations will be over the head of most readers, including myself. There must be a way to simplify what he and others have said.

Another claim often made is that Christy Whitman said the air was safe to breathe. Here is something from the NY Times of Sept. 18:

The New York Times, Sept. 18, page F2
"Dust is a Problem, but the Risk Seems Small"
by Andrew C. Revkin

"We haven't found anything that is alarming to us," said Mary Mears, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Agency.

...Overall, though, officials said the only significant health risk remained near the destruction. Workers there should wear masks and protective gear and clean their shoes before heading home, they said.

Some officials expressed frustration because many of the workers--most of them hard-bitten construction workers--were ignoring their recommendations.


Agency officials and independent experts tried to quell rumors about other hazards, including the possibility that the fires might have turned freon from air-conditioners into a poisonous gas called phosgene.

The chemical reaction that generates phosgene is possible in extremely hot flames, but not in fires like those still burning, agency officials said. Any gas generated by the initial inferno has dissipated, they said.

So it appears that there was concern expressed for the safety of the workers at ground zero early on, and perhaps an attempt to get them to wear masks. Now in practice that might not have been so, but a lot of hay is made of Whitman's comments. What about others responsible for the cleanup of the site? They were knowledgeable about such things. Did they have no responsibility? Was Whitman referring to just the entire New York area? How about the phosgene, now that we know that there were high temperatures at the "collapse"" site?

If I have offended anyone by my remarks, or shown my ignorance, I ask your forgiveness in advance. There will naturally be lulls in activity in the movement. That's not a totally unnatural pattern, particularly as obstacles are being met and overcome. The point is to keep the pressure on.

Hamid Gul...

Acts no differently regarding Pakistan than someone from Israel acts regarding Israel. Pakistan can do no wrong. In my opinion, his stance can't be trusted as unbiased.

As I have said, the $100k to Atta from Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh is not alleged. That is heavily documented. What is alleged is that Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed ordered Sheikh to wire it to him. That was first reported by the Times of India...

And then was CONFIRMED by Agence France Presse (something "debunkers" and people who denounce this story seem to forget). It was reported on by the Wall Street Journal, and even the Dawn from Pakistan reported on it. Throughout the years, this story has been reported on too many times to count by what is considered "reputable" news outlets.

I have tried speaking to Dennis Lormel, and basically got a "no comment."

1) Did Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh have ties to the ISI? Yes. That is HEAVILY documented.

2) Was the 9/11 Commission presented information about this incident? Yes. In the form of a question from the families. Did they answer their question? No. The 9/11 Commission was also told about Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed by Sibel Edmonds, and STILL didn't find him to be a person of interest (an indication that there is a cover-up, and that people have something to hide).

3) Ahmed and Sheikh apparently took part in ANOTHER "terrorist attack" together.

There are other indicators, but these are from the top of my head. It needs to be addressed. Especially when you consider that Pakistan policy was being run from Cheney's office. Especially when you consider that it has been established that Cheney used the CIA/ISI/Terrorist connection on a separate ocassion. Very simply, it needs to be addressed, and I basically don't trust anyone that says otherwise.

However, again, this doesn't mean I think we should replace CD with this.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Jon Firstly the whole story


Firstly the whole story has a lot of problems See this article for previous discussions on it here.

Secondly, there is a link between Cheney's office and this transaction (if true) That does not prove Cheney (or the US) paid Atta.

Thirdly, Even if the story is true and Cheney hand paid Atta the money. It could have been to take part in the training exercise on 911
(Patsy). So the whole story is only potentially embarrassing

Fourthly , The fact that this story is reported in mainstream press is suspicious, given that all important information on 911 and many other dodgy dealings over the century are completely missing from the press .The press is part of the system. It is owned and focused on doing what the system wants it to do -spread dis info and manufacture consent.

Fifthly, (and the point of this article) By choosing to select and promote this evidence instead of something else, you reinforce the premise of the OT that 'Muslims did 911' more than you challenge the OT.

What are you trying to do Jon ?
Are you trying to effect change?
Are you trying to challenge the OT?

Or are you trying to reinforce the OT and divide and neutralize the truth movement?

I know you will say "I just want unanswered questions adressed for the family members"

Do you not know enough yet about the world and what happened on 911,its bloody aftermath & our bloody future, to realize that this is not enough?

The fact that you linked...

To jpass's article tells me that you are a frequenter of a site that has done nothing but attacked me over the years. jpass's article addresses none of my points. Like I asked above... "Do you know them?" Sorry, but I'm done. You're ridiculous notion that by promoting this information I am trying to reinforce the OT is absurd. I don't recall this story being apart of the official narrative.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

pduveen dont worry , i wont


dont worry , i wont bite.
You usually find that people who have a firm understanding of the issues and are trying to help will engage people and share info.
The people who treat you like an idiot or inferior are always the ones who go against logic and evidence, they want you to shut up. Dont!

You had some useful things to say here,thanks.

I don't think CD is too difficult or inconclusive though, but i do agree it could be presented better. I will at some point try and write an idiots proof of CD.
If anyone has seen anything I could use or look at along these lines then please chirp.

As far as global collapse goes, I was under the impression that this was a new phenomenon, never discovered before 911 , and it conveniently explains the unexplainable. I did not know that work you referred to but will browse it.

Don't assume that if stuff is above your head you cant decide tho. A very common dis info tactic is to do exactly this.
I once was pointed to a 170 odd page 'irrefutable ' denial of WTC CD collapse. It was utter crap but the purpose was to waffle on and on (to make you think the argument against is really substantial ) and often deliberately over complex to make you think you dont know enough to decide.

Look at this goon trying to disprove the nanothermite paper
when challenged he finally admits he does not really know what he is talking about.
He was the same guy who told be in the link in my article that 911 is a Taboo politically( In an extremely condescending and patronizing manner).

Apart from hard edged scientific proof (Which is not really that difficult or complex just basic Newton stuff taught to 13 year olds{ but not 3 year olds as Jon previously mocked me in a reply}, there is also a common sense proof based on general intelligence we all have about the world around us.

different strokes

Personally, i think from the videos of WTC 1, 2 it's obvious these are not due to plane damage, office fires and the upper 15-30 stories, and in the case of 7 the failure of a single column from office fires. And it also seems obvious the most likely explanation is CD. And the NIST reports omitted and distorted evidence. It seems clear at this point that no case more convincing than NIST's, which fails to convince, is going to be made that explosives weren't the cause for the destructions. And the evidence of CD continues to mount.

That said, I have no issue with anyone that promotes credible evidence, but does not promote 'all' the evidence, such as Jon Gold- i have an issue with people that promote bogus evidence/entities, and behave in divisive ways. Jon's tact could use some polishing (and if anyone wants to point out my faults, go ahead- I appreciate help sharpening my presentation), but his encouraging people to consider how evidence and arguments have been used against the 9/11 Truth Movement- including the CD claims, is helpful, not divisive- imho.

What truth activist wants to set their own work up for failure- instead of convincing people to investigate 9/11 for themselves and advocate for full investigations and accountability, to instead persuade people that the 9/11 Truth Movement is full of clueless and irresponsible people promoting bogus claims? Those who would perpetuate the cover up obviously want that- and this is probably the reason for the numerous bogus/speculative claims being made, and disreputable/discredited figures being promoted.

I'm not saying CD is bogus- or that people shouldn't share evidence of CD- it's compelling and persuasive. But i don't agree with those who say this is the CD movement, it has to be the principal claim, that those who don't promote it- who even question its usefulness- are traitors and/or shills.

PS - AllendeAdmirer- insinuating that Jon Gold is primarily about the $100K wire transfer and a few other things is really off-base. Jon's Facts compilation includes hundreds of separate pieces of evidence grouped by category, many of which are grounds for a new investigation by themselves, and together create an overwhelming case that points primarily to state-level involvement including US, Pakistani, Israeli and Saudi Arabian entities, as well as dispelling the notion that 9/11 was solely due to Al Qaeda/Bin Laden.

I'm glad you support investigating and promoting diverse evidence- there's a ton available.

Regarding my tact...

After years of having to deal with accusations simply because I am Jewish, accusations that I am a shill of some kind because I focus on information that isn't Controlled Demolition, crank phone calls (to my house, and my family's), harassment because of my support of the families/responders (something I know is right and just), over and over and over again... my "tact" is about as polished as it's going to get. If you talk nicely to me, and show respect, then I am MORE than capable of talking nicely to you, and showing respect. In my mind, I have done enough over the years that should squash any ideas that I am not legitimate, but to some... I guess it's not enough.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Have I not been respectful

Have I not been respectful here?
I have tried hard not to make this personal here Jon, I have apologized for my outburst on your facts thread, and explained my frustration with your recent comments and your refusal to engage with my comments.

This is a very BOLD move that is being suggested here, about changing the 911 movement, and i think it is extremely important that it is openly discussed.

The point of my article was fairly precise. I used Atta as an EXAMPLE,and said so. I also mentioned two other of your facts (That Usama May be dead, and that Bush was re elected) and compared them to other possible points, only to make the point that ***IF*** you have to select, then why not select the most likely evidence that will make people sit up and want to change the world. If any point is less damaging to the OT than others, then by selecting it you are necessarily drawing focus away from the more damaging evidence. Diluting it.

You completely ignored the point of my article and instead chose to re prove the importance of the Atta thing. I answered with more discussion on why the Atta thing is not likely to change the world. AS PER THE POINT OF MY ARTICLE

I can go through other points on your list applying the same measure, but I don't want to make this personal.

You and your facts list are very high profile here, so it is of major importance to the perception of this site.
How can I discuss this matter of extreme importance without angering you into thinking it is a conspiracy against you?

Correction to the article

Correction to the article above, at the end when I gave links I repeated the NYCCAN link twice instead of this:
It should have read

I questioned the value of an article #
"that seemed to reinforce the OT, but was told I should concentrate on areas where I agree with the OT as a starting point to awareness."

This discussion was relevant to my motivation and reasons for this article, so it may be of value to read it.