Victoria Ashley Joins 911Blogger Moderation Team
We are pleased to announce that Victoria Ashley has accepted our invitation to help moderate 911Blogger.
911Blogger users will be familiar with her posts and comments as Victronix.
Victoria is a co-founder and editor of 911TruthNews.com.
The following is posted as her bio there:
Victoria Ashley has been researching the attack since 2003 and has contributed unique insights into the modes and methods of misinformation used to marginalize the 9/11 Truth Movement. Victoria highlighted the importance of Steven Jones’ work in a 2006 essay, Steven E. Jones, A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11: Reason, Publicity, and Reaction, and in late 2006, helped to organize the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice group. Her most recent essays are Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11, and, To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show‘.
Victoria has demonstrated her concern for truth and justice by consistently relying on credible evidence and sound reasoning to expose not only the false elements of the official version of 9/11 and the evidence pointing to insider involvement, but also misinformation and dubious claims that have been circulated in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
In addition, she has demonstrated patience and respect for people, even when she or her views are subject to hostility. We believe Victoria will be an asset on the 911Blogger Team in our mission to cover 9/11 related news, events, information and research, to advance the cause of truth and justice, and to provide a space that promotes civil discussion of news and issues related to 9/11 and the post-9/11 world.
We also want to acknowledge the importance of the 911Blogger user community; the site would not exist without you. We appreciate your feedback on the management and direction of 911Blogger as we go forward into the next decade following 9/11. The thread below is open for your comments.
Welcome, Victoria!
Justin, Ted, John and Erik
- jkeogh's blog
- Login to post comments
Excellent news!
Vic is one of the best there is.
The future looks bright for 911blogger!
super!
What a great addition to the 911Blogger team, who have been doing such an inspiring job with the website. It's wonderful to watch 911Blogger get better and better as the fake propaganda campaign against it falls apart. Great job everyone!
thanks for
carefully selecting sensible people to guide this site !
Right move....
....right time.
Nice
This is great news and makes me very happy. It seems that Victoria really knows the difference between a serious social movement and a conspiracy theory movement and it really is that kind of approach that is going to bring us into the light of mainstream respectability. People should always remember that we have the evidence on our side and we don't have to make sensational claims to press our case, we simply have to direct people to the high quality evidence that we are all aware of and the rest takes care of itself. With this new addition to the moderator team we will no doubt grow and improve. Welcome Victoria and thanks for your dedication to the cause!
Thanks guys! I'll be
Thanks guys! I'll be cracking the whip.
This is great news. After
This is great news. After years of more-or-less giving up on this forum i can now feel comfortable returning.
Excellent addition to the team
Victoria is always fair minded and direct in her comments. She is also an excellent a researcher who keeps track of what is going on all over the net.
Congrats Victoria
...and good luck. I hope you'll be tolerant as well as fair.
YES!!
Blogger takes another step towards the open-minded, most thoughtful and most critical researchers in the 9/11 Truth Movement! Great news guys. Keep it up.
AS IF!!!
It's funny how those who "still have questions" as to what happened at the pentagon, continue sad attempts to frame it as though there is some sort of psuedo-censorship of discussions about the pentagon. PUH-LEEZE! There have been so many threads about tons of aspects of the pentagon. Any facts and new facts about the pentagon have always been welcomed with open arms. What is your point Randy? I think many people will continue to discuss many facts about the pentagon, like Norman Mineta's testimony for instance. Did your comment get down voted on a thread one day? Don't get bitter. If you post opinions or conjecture and get called out on it or voted down, GET OVER IT! Your comment is still there for people to open up. You can even explain yourself in another comment if you feel you have been wrongly down voted. Blogger keeps allowing people to pontificate on EVERY little question people have about the pentagon. Even the most ridiculous ones. Patient (dwindling as mine is currently) blogger's here take lots of time to responded to dubious claims which are down voted and hidden. So Randy...
What basis do you have for this claim?
Which Pentagon discussion are you talking about for there are many?
Are you trying to imply something about Victoria or Blogger?
Your little loaded comment needs some justification because right now it looks like baseless rhetoric.
You bet it will.
You bet it will.
LOL
good times
Or is that just another total
Or is that just another total waste of time. Yawn.
Thanks
for nothing.
I gather you're above it all, and my efforts are meaningless to you. Go wage battle at the misinformation front line yourself then.
Worse than a waste of time
The two plane theory is absurd IMO and can be used against us. It's "flyover light".
Interesting that everyone gives me a hard time for opposing this theory but no one tells Erik and Michael to drop it.
I would like to know who actually supports the "two plane theory" other than Erik and Michael.
I'm not sure
what exactly you mean by two plane theory. If you mean Roosevelt saw one plane approaching and another departing, then yes.
But I do know that the following people support Roosevelt Roberts as a SoC witness:
Adam Larson, Arabesque, Erik Larson, Broken Sticks, jimd3100 and me. There are more. (I won't include the whole of the debunker community, as I know that carries no weight here)
Adam Larson, Erik Larson and Arabesque are pretty heavy weight I would say. Moreover, Jennifer Brennan, the daughter of Don Brennan, a colleague of Roosevelt's, makes it pretty clear in the LOC interview description that Roosevelt saw the plane before impact.
Roosevelt says it himself in the interview with CIT:
Roosevelt Roberts:
Yes sir, that's not what I think I saw it, it was two aircraft that's for sure.
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-06/cit-transcript-roosevelt-roberts
Not
that I'm aware of..
Realplayer is a real piece of crap imo, you're better off with VLC and/or mplayer.
If censorship
is going to be the norm around here, I'm out.
JK
I was just kidding, if you're talking about me . . . but these Pentagon threads get pretty distorted to try to read on many levels, so I can't tell. In any case, I guess some people are genuinely afraid that somehow I'll magically be able to censor every nutty post about the Pentagon, but what else is new. I'm considered super human by many as it is.
Psych!
LOL.
I'm just saying that I find it opportunistic, in the bad sense of the word, for Chris to seize on announcement to try to connect discussion about Roosevelt Roberts to moderator intervention.
I know how poised and rational you are as a 9/11 researcher. Therefore, I have confidence you'll make the right decisions. I also think sometimes an irrational comment should be allowed so that a response can be made that shows why it is irrational.
Bad idea. Censorship would
Bad idea. Censorship would only be the norm if most of the blog postings were not based on good evidence or sound reasoning. If that was the norm then there would be nothing wrong with censorship being the norm. Fortunately it's not.
Censorship
Suppression of something regarded as objectionable.
Things censored on this forum:
Profanity
Hate speech
Name calling
After lengthy debate it has been decided that the following theories are baseless and should be rejected by the TM.
Therefore, further discussion of these theories not permitted on this forum.
Mini nukes
Directed Energy weapons
No planes at the WTC
The Pentagon flyover theory
All forums censor to one degree or another as is necessary and appropriate to that particular forum. Those who cry "censorship" should consult a dictionary and a therapist.
Randy
can you clarify what you meant pls.
i initially though you meant in the sense that Victoria would help everyone see straight and then we'd get over the pentagony re no 757 crash vs 757 crash arguments
but
after reading my peer kdub's comment i realise there's an almost opposite possible meaning to what i originally thought
no further comment needed from me
"well ... that'll end discussion of the Pentagon, forever" (Randy)
"You bet it will" (Victronix)
as I suspected ... and I don't mean that in a good way. I debated formulating an answer to kdub, only to have it buried, and a waste of my time. Victoria came along and saved me the trouble.
Let me say one thing, in a nutshell. I have never agreed with the argument against a "big tent" (with a few exceptions). I believe we need a larger 9/11 Truth movement, not a smaller one. Since 2004, I have worked toward building a mass movement, to outnumber (or join with) the anti-war movement It disturbs me greatly to see the pioneers of 9/11 Truth to be cast aside (one example Barry Zwicker) for merely endorsing the merits of CIT's research. I've even seen calls to distance ourselves from David Ray Griffin, with his huge body of work, just because someone doubts one small iota involving seat-back phones, or something. Or, that we'd me much further along without controlled demolition!!! Or, without Alex Jones. This infighting is ridiculous.
And yes, I have grown to be more suspect of this website after Jesse Ventura's Pentagon episode was not considered to be front page news here.
Now everybody ... hand on your mouse. It's the bottom arrow. bye
It matters not
what is popular. It matters what's truthful.
This isn't the fancy exciting titillating conspiracy hype circus movement, is it?
If a plane hit the Pentagon, that means JV is wrong, DRG is wrong, Barry Zwicker is wrong.... and if they're wrong... that means what?
I'll tell you what it means: it means that this movement is expending energy on imbibing large groups of people with delusional fantasies. What an accomplishment. Count me out. Lying about 9/11 isn't my cup of tea, sorry.
Wow
"I debated formulating an answer to kdub, only to have it buried, and a waste of my time"
This comment kind of implies that you answered me, but you didn't. Snow Crash is correct above in his response to you as well. Amazing how you are listing all of this pentagon support and no plane big tent advocacy on this thread.
Alex Jones=Infighter We are talking about the man who showed most of us Jim Fetzer, CONTINUES to bring on Tarpley (who by the way has taking much direct action to severe any potential connections with the anti-war left whom I know you want to connect with, and who's we are change confrontation tactics have pushed away potential supporters and good info by bull-horning undigestible, and audaciously bold buzz phrases which AJ has pontificated for years.
The AJ big tent is just to filled with circus droppings, of animals now old and dead, that it would be hard for any reasonable people to stay for an entire show. ;)
Just to stay on topic responding to your (Randy's) ugly statement, Victoria even clarified that she was joking. But it doesn't really matter because she was responding to a vague rhetorical statement of yours, which you refused to even clarify (as I mentioned above in your admitted lack of response). She was nice enough not to "censor" a response. Just one tiny reason among many that blogger's new choice is a special, invaluable one!
i dont get it
you say as victoria becomes a mod here then
"that'll end discussion of the Pentagon, forever"
so you mean she'll censor it ?
i doubt that- we need debate to purify our knowledge
keep bringing your viewpoints please and dont expect censorship from victoria
keep it fact based , not emotion based and leave the personalities out of it and you'll make a bigger splash with what you have to say
and my apologies for the people who have the 757 crash right in my mind but aren't as polite as they could be
i wish you well- you can contact me on facebook if you want to exchange 9/11 info
:)
thank you for your encouragement Douglas
you touched on what I think I find most disturbing of all ... the tone of discussion.
"and my apologies for the people who have the 757 crash right in my mind but aren't as polite as they could be"
I am not one to get into these lengthy debates about the Pentagon myself (I don't believe a 757/Flt 77 hit) but when I read those discussions, I find they devolve into mud-slinging. I am interested enough to listen to both sides, but I wish it were more civilized. I am, however, aware that a number of contributors here have been banned. The sheer heavy-handedness of the down-votes also leads me to believe that one side of the camp, if not banned, has been driven away more for the tone here, than anything.
thanks again.. I am facebook-challenged, lol. call me paranoid, ha.
Victimology
Some of us have been threatened, others have been stalked, harassed, taunted, defamed.
Give me a break with the victimology. Scroll back in 911blogger history. The 'assholes' and the 'fucks' were flying around. It's become a lot more civil.
It sucks to be voted down, I understand. Truth is not a popularity contest. But the strong-headed refusal by the Pentagon plane crash deniers to consider the orgy of evidence that they're wrong... is obviously starting to annoy a lot of people, including me. We want you in the truth movement, but we don't want you out in the streets telling people lies in our name. Which is what CIT and their group are going to be doing in 2011. What a come-down.
When one reads this, one would think that would do it for most people. Apparently it doesn't. Why? Beats me. Why do some people believe God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith? Why do some people believe global warming is a hoax? The 9/11 Truth Movement finds itself in a curious predicament: its main message is more likely to attract the conspiratorially minded than the rational skeptic, and I believe we should have more of the latter.
Naturally because 9/11 Truth presents a 'conspiracy theory', it attracts 'conspiracy theorists', that is, in the pejorative sense, people whose logical and rational pathways are in disrepair. So there's a constant internal tension between those who'd like to stick with what makes sense, and those who invent dots to connect. The 'paranoid first, research later' group is an albatross around this movement's neck. If we become too disinclined to be open to new information, some of which might be paradigm shifting, we become as rigid minded as the people we're trying to illuminate. If we become a big tent-friendly conspiracy nut movement, disseminating falsehoods, we will fade into obscurity.
You tell me. A 757 hit the Pentagon. It's one of those things long past the threshold of rational fact. My rejection doesn't originate with obtuseness, but with intense study of the subject, followed by a rejection of the no plane/no plane crash theories. It is not an uninformed rejection, although I'm sure many 'NPC' theorist might think they know better. Promote NPC or NPT, expect a blistering response.
Randy
can i ask you - where did you first receive the no 757 crash info ?
for me it was watching LC2e- it seemed fine and i went with it
i think it was a reasonable conclusion to come to as most crashes dont involve the plane going at full tilt into a barrier
The Sandia crash test of an F-4 into a concrete barrier reduced the plane to rubble.
downvote
that was quick. I'll check back on the hysteria I created, tomorrow.
Randy I'd like to be in touch with the
aircraft crash scene investigator- any ideas how?
dont3fanATgmail
Well . . .
>>I went to San Diego (from LA) to see Barbara Honegger make her presentation, because I wanted to hear the side that I cannot find here on 911Blogger.
You also won't find much Icke, Webfairy or Haupt here either. And you won't find those on TruthAction, TruthMove or most other viable forums either.
Some groups are continuing to advocate claims that have little evidence to support them -- exciting-sounding, mysterious, and magical-seeming theories that require tossing out large bodies of eyewitness evidence, distorting physical evidence and cherry-picking of points as necessary to make the case.
Most of what these heart-pounding theories amount to is often:
"IT WAS ALL FAKED!!! EVERYTHING!!!"
Certain people get excited about pods, mini-nukes, missiles, holograms, flashes and flyovers, but that doesn't make them real.
It only means that certain people aren't really able to distinguish between scientific evidence -- which has grown Richard Gage's group to over 1200 professionals -- and exciting claims that haven't actually gone anywhere in 10 years.
I don't usually discuss unprovable theories but
Randy, I couldn't help noticing you included the assertion by Pilots for 9/11 truth that the plane could not have withstood the final pull-up, and you also referred to ground effect and the hole in the wall. These questions have proven answers.
The fact that you listed these three issues shows you have not done your homework yet. Pilot's calculation has been shown to be grossly out by several researchers. In fact the pull-up does not stress the plane severely at all. The maths required to prove that is simple. You can easily work it out for yourself. The fact that Pilots have not retracted that assertion is a disgrace.
Similarly ground effect is a non-issue. The faster a plane goes the less is the ground effect. Who is still pushing that theory?
Similarly the hole in the wall was estimated to be 96 feet wide, considerably wider than enough to admit all the heavy parts of the plane. You would not expect the light parts to penetrate such a heavy wall. The debris outside, small pieces, appeared to be quite sufficient, as shown in numerous photographs and videos. Who is still saying the hole was not big enough?
These issues have been raised and discussed many times on 9/11 Blogger. You should not be surprised to be voted down when you bring up such tired old disproved arguments.
Great News for us that wish to put "hard evidence" first!
Vic is an inspiration to me, and to have her here in my view lifts this site to a new level!
Kind regards John
I second that.
I second that.
That doesn't bode well
(see Subject line)
why
?
just for the record
burying comments is censorship and is not just about voting upopular or unscientific comments down. Down votes are fine, burying comments are a form of sanction which I feel is a form of censorship.
I believe in the big tent even if a few "mini nukes" get thru the gate. Keep educating people on the facts by all means but don't turn them away. As I have pointed out people get turned off by this site especially concerning the Pentagon vote downs etc. In addition I support Randy regarding throwing people with unpopular or unsubstantiated or wrong or inaccurate views under the bus especially if they have contributed significantly to the cause for a new investigation. Reforns and new investigations do not take place by voting for a new leader who promises hope? You want hope that's what you get more hope. Hope is not truth or reform.
Finally, what exactly is the plan if not a big tent massive protest. How do people intend getting the establishment ie leaders, media, officials, to respond to your concerns about the lies surrounding the events of sept 11th? It would seem plenty of evidence already exists and has been presented to significant numbers of academics, media personel, political representatives, judicial members, and yet almost a decade has passed without any real chance of a new investigation becoming apparent. I pesonally feel this is not by chance or without good reason. My real concern is that with the passage of enough time people are no longer committed to the truth and accept the lies as typical US Govt. Corruption History.
Aw come on man
"Vote up! Vote down!
burying comments is censorship and is not just about voting upopular or unscientific comments down. Down votes are fine, burying comments are a form of sanction which I feel is a form of censorship."
We have already gone over and over at how this is NOT censorship. It's frankly an open format to allow not only ANYONE to post almost any thing and to allow everyone to voice support or not. This blog gives folks the ability to show what the majority of people who visit the site feel. That is just a few perspectives which people can obviously tell by the numbers. People can also still open up comments but you know all this already. It's open to change and truth.
"I believe in the big tent even if a few "mini nukes" get thru the gate."
"You want hope that's what you get more hope. Hope is not truth or reform."
But you are not encouraging the truth consistently here. You are advocating the opposite of truth as long is it's part of a group.
"In addition I support Randy regarding throwing people with unpopular or unsubstantiated or wrong or inaccurate views under the bus especially if they have contributed significantly to the cause for a new investigation."
Under a bus?! People are being very specific as to their problems with the way pseudo-leaders behave. When these psuedo-leaders get all the media attention, give the movement a huge out let, then drop the ball with bad info, it A)does NOT encourage questioning of the OCT and in fact, when one sifts threw some of the complex points the pseudo leaders (who you think are being thrown under a bus) they are likely to walk away especially when they find that their time was wasted by conspiracy theorists JUST like many mainstream media outlets they already trust warned them about. B) Helps discredit and destroy the truth movement. This can be shown in EVERY debunking article. If we gain any footing at all as a movement, we in turn receive the MOST CRITICAL analysis of our truth.
I feel like you already understand these points peaceful. But you keep going back to claiming censorship and "big tent" ideas.
You want the truth.....you can't handle the critique of the truth? ;)
Sorry,
there is no need to bury any comments. I do not agree with this policy and will continue to voice my feelings.
Without enough people I see no chance for justice. I am certainly not anti-truth.
Plenty of sincere people who want a new investigation and know the OCT is a lie have different and sometimes mistaken concepts involving the events,IMO sincere folks need to stick together on the big picture.
The debunking jerks will always find ways to discredit the truth no matter what, that is their job, that's what they get paid to do. If nothing else they will simply lie. Look at what is happening with the UN president and the US ambassador who have been confronted by significant truth they simply Lie.
The real enemy of the truth movement is time. Time has buried the truth thru-out the US and World history. Even now I see a change with people who are just beggining to understand 911 is a lie, they are not outraged by the truth or denial of what I say as in the past. They seem to accept it as a continued distrust with a Govt that has repeatedly lied etc. This is not a good sign. Take the WMD's for example, only a short time ago, after 911 for god's sake and who cares about the truth or it's implications? Who's in trouble for that? My god the VP's office of the US outed a CIA agent speaking the truth and committed treason, but what really happens? Nothing! I see all your points as valid however I do not see the divisive situation as helping the Truth Movement's chance for success as you do.
I know you are most likely very frustrated with my position, however this is the truth from my perspective. Peace.
is the 9/11 truth movement ...
... a cult, or an example of 'fandom' like Star Wars/Star Trek - or is it a movement for truth and justice?
"almost a decade has passed without any real chance of a new investigation becoming apparent. I pesonally feel this is not by chance or without good reason. My real concern is that with the passage of enough time people are no longer committed to the truth and accept the lies as typical US Govt." - pw
"Plenty of sincere people who want a new investigation and know the OCT is a lie have different and sometimes mistaken concepts involving the events,IMO sincere folks need to stick together on the big picture." - pw
Is 'the truth' a matter of taste, preference, opinion or belief? Or is truth related to facts, proof, evidence, reality, real history?
If people are claiming '9/11 was an inside job cuz AAL 77 didn't hit the Pentagon', when it in fact it did hit the Pentagon, not only are these people promoting two falsehoods, they are undermining the cause of getting to the truth about 9/11, justice for the crimes, and the larger goal of establishing truth and justice in government and society on a global scale.
There is no evidence AAL 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, and there's evidence it did. All the alleged evidence and arguments for AAL 77 not hitting the Pentagon are based on misinfo/misinterpretation of photos, witness statements, preconceived notions about what a plane crash at the Pentagon should look like, http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html as well as the failure of the govt to produce all the video, photos and other records in its possession - which is really convenient for those who have a lot to answer for regarding 9/11, cuz the truth movement has been discredited and disrupted by the 'AAL 77 didn't hit' claims, instead of people gathering under a big tent which only promotes the kind of credible evidence which is at http://911research.wtc7.net/, http://www.911review.com, http://www.journalof911studies.com and http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project, and which does not embrace unsupported, speculative, flimsy claims as if they were 'truth'.
What's wrong with a big tent which welcomes everyone concerned with truth and justice, meaning people who are interested in learning the facts, correcting mistakes, engaging in civil discussion, and promoting credible evidence and arguments to the public, media and public servants? This kind of big tent means people wouldn't be alienated who don't want to be associated with a 'truth movement' that doesn't respect truth and rational critique - which is the reputation the movement's gotten, thanks to people falling for, perpetuating and getting defensive about pet theories which are based on mis or disinfo instead of facts and reality.
The Establishment media and disruptors have capitalized on this tremendously; that's a major reason why the movement doesn't have greater public support, and why there's been no accountability yet. Who wants that? The people most responsible for 9/11, that's who.
911Blogger is committed to doing the best it can for truth and justice, which is exactly why Victoria Ashley was invited to join as a mod, and why we're glad she agreed.
"What's wrong with a big tent
"What's wrong with a big tent which welcomes everyone concerned with truth and justice, meaning people who are interested in learning the facts, correcting mistakes, engaging in civil discussion, and promoting credible evidence and arguments to the public, media and public servants? This kind of big tent means people wouldn't be alienated who don't want to be associated with a 'truth movement' that doesn't respect truth and rational critique - which is the reputation the movement's gotten, thanks to people falling for, perpetuating and getting defensive about pet theories which are based on mis or disinfo instead of facts and reality."
Boom this statement says it all. PW don't you see how this big tent view you are advocating is indeed alienating those who base their worlds on rational critique and truth. It has alienated some of the movements potentially strongest supporters and researchers because they are bright logical thinking people who know to associate with tangible facts and not speculation.
Congrats Victoria and Blogger! You all are hero's to me.
Thanks for the response, your statement
"which is the reputation the movement's gotten, thanks to people falling for, perpetuating and getting defensive about pet theories which are based on mis or disinfo instead of facts and reality. "
I'm sorry I don't see the evidence of this holding back the movement with respectable, honest and objective observers. The 911 Lie has so many aspects that no one part of the lie should determine the fate of the movement with truly objective observers. As I have said I really don't care what hit the pentagon or what didn't hit the pentagon etc. I know the OCT is a lie no matter what hit the pentagon. Any honest, objective inquiry into the OCT will result in the conclusion that we have been lied to. Yes certain mistakes in trying to determine exactly what happened on sept 11th will be made, but even if no mistakes or wrong conclusions are promoted will that lead to justice and the whole truth, I truly don't believe so. The Movement will be debunked no matter what, until the powers that be are forced to confront the truth. How will that be done? US History is filled with cover-ups as I have said repeatedly. Surely the folks Kdub says we have "alienated some of the movements potentially strongest supporters and researchers because they are bright logical thinking people who know to associate with tangible facts and not speculation. " could have found substantial facts to have determined we have been lied too by now. These I maintain are not truly objective, honest people. They have other reasons for not adopting the movement's objective for a new " real investigation." I truly see your positions, I respect them, but I humbly disagree.
repetition
One of the things which annoys people is repetition of the same point over and over. You say you don't care what hit the Pentagon. Well if you "don't care" why do you have to keep telling those of us who do care, and want to get the facts right, that you don't care? You say that in your opinion people supporting rubbish about the Pentagon do more good than harm. Here we think they do more harm than good. Look at the way powerful opinion leaders like Richard Gage, Dwain Deets and Barrie Zwicker have been deceived. Is that not harm enough?
Of course if you disagree you have a right to your opinion but why keep repeating it?
I want to let this go, but I thought about it and
Peacefulwarrior in this regard you could not be more wrong. See you did make me consider why most of my friends and family, and the 100's of others on the street and in my life who I tried discussing this with and exactly why they were turned off to the truth. It was never because they didn't trust that I might be on to something for they heard me out on points I had to say, nor that I didn't have some credible facts. It was the second I mixed in speculation and/or bad info that they started to not only break down the point right away, they also started to begin to distrust my judgement of reality. This is basic logic for people to follow. If they get the sense that someone has been mislead they can easily start seeing through the good things you present and go right to the bad ones. This is NATURAL. I occurs to me as natural because it has happened in EVERY SINGLE 9/11 discussion I have had where started to drop speculation and discreditable info. Peoples minds must confront on these points, for they are being asked to open up to a truth which is already hard for them to begin to open up to so a flaw in the logic which will help them overcome any potential of an alternative will be heavily embraced. So they will see right to the points that you fail on and not only that, those points trump good info in a presentation or discussion 10 fold. For these types of theories and disinfo conveys a stereotype of a THEORIST which doesn't necessarily mean ANY FACTS AT ALL. Theorist stereotypes are strong because they are founded in people like AJ and David Icke who I by they way have repeated some bad info from these two and have had my friends rip it apart. You can't have it both ways on this (peaceful). You will lose in discussions every time. I've spoken with so many people and received the same reaction I describe above SO CONSISTENTLY and frankly I thank you for making me think of how consistent it has been all the years. Any kind of consistency in outreach and general discussions is important for us to learn from. You are showing me just how critical and careful I must be in regard to the information I accept.
People aren't dumb just because they are ignorant. We cannot insult their intelligence with assumptions that folks will just gloss over bunk ideas. On the contrary their attention will be drawn to bunk idea as a form life preserver to save them from drowning in the fear of a scary alternative 9/11 reality. We end up looking like the wild storm attempting to wash them overboard.
Sorry my experience has been much different
And for the record it's not exactly that I don't care what hit the pentagon................it's that at this point it's not important to me, an investigation is warranted no matter what hit the pentagon. Anyway I yield to the floor and in the end I hope you guys are right because you are insisting you are and leaving no real room for discussion.
The "bunk idea as a form life preserver to save them from drowing in the fear of a scary alternative 911 reality" was perhaps what I encountered with people a few years ago.
Things have changed with most of the people I talk to for the first time these days. There is no resistance lately they listen, they've heard it already perhaps, many don't seem to doubt that the OCT has been a lie. Perhaps they will stop a family member from joining the war forces, some folks have articulated as much. What is really missing lately is the outrage over the lies, even the passion that "this can't be" our Govt. wouldn't lie about that is missing. Time is blurring the outrage IMO as well as what's left of the evidence.
So I hope you folks have a plan that works. I have my doubts about the tactics, but I will continue to support your efforts. Nuff said.
Peace