Remember Building 7 Event Front Page on + Event Turnout Numbers

"Inside The 9/11 WTC Building 7 Truther Conference: [Insert Motive Here]"
-By Christopher Robbins in News on March 28, 2011 11:30 AM

Direct Link:

Another Building 7 Article posted on the Gothamist. This time it's on the front page at the top.

We should attempt to find a few comments and "Like" them together so they are voted up to the top.

***Event Turnout Numbers

I called Mike DeRosa from WWUH Radio to get a QUICK estimate on the turnout at the Hartford CT event and how it went because I have been dying just to hear something about it.

Mr. DeRosa said:
~260 People Total
~40 of which were presenters/helpers
~80 were still there at the end of the event
~The Event was filmed from multiple cameras. He is working on trying to get it released and ready for youtube.

All in all the event "went very well" and the guests were "excited and impressed" about the information being presented.

Hopefully some more official numbers and a better summary of the event will come out in the coming days.

Interesting comments at the

Interesting comments at the Gothamist website.
We are ahead but not by much.

He's basically saying, he's

He's basically saying, he's not convinced about WTC7, there's nothing else that we should be concerned about regarding the official account, let's move on.

I am very, very, very frustrated.

Gothamist's Frustration

Ya know John, it seemed to me by reading his story that he was put off in a number of ways; first, it seems he was pissed that the organizers were too cheap to buy him a taxi ride up to Hartford and back, ant the poor carless New Yorker had to take public transportation there... Then, after his arduous journey into the hinterlands, he was denied the thrill of experiencing someone yelling into a microphone- "Dick Cheney's the one!!" or some such sensational material he could use for a bombshell scoop. You get the idea...

I'm frustrated too, and I better stop here because we both know what happens in these comment threads when one takes a position other than- "that was really great and wonderful." That said, I wish I had the answer to why the "shows" aren't working, and I've been the faithful Truther that has been to most of them over the years.

His reasoning is fishy

Basically he says: So because no one is speculating about a motive (and sticks to the scientific facts instead) it was no crime at all.

That's ridiculous. If you found a man stabbed with a knife in the back, you have evidence for stabbing and do not go ahead by saying no one had a motive to kill him.

Call him on that. It's strange what hermeneutically, sealed, closed world views can generate.

The "why" question

The "why" question seems to come up over and over again. This is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach to discredit us. According to our detractors, since we are "conspiracy theorists," we must know who and why something happened before we can proclaim the existential truth that something happened. To me it's like finding a dead body on the sidewalk with a small bullet hole in his back, the coroner determining that the person died of natural causes and stating "unless you can tell me who did it and why this person was shot, there is no reason to consider the bullet hole."

It's basically a trap to get us to defend a particular conspiracy theory so they can attempt to hang us. It's also an excuse so they won't have to come to terms with the fact that the evidence is real.

It doesn't matter if it's WTC7, the NORAD stand down, or the plethora of advance warnings and foreknowledge, the stronger our evidence the more likely detractors will immediately jump to the "why" question to avoid dealing with issues that the evidence raises. In a way it's a good sign that across the board we are both disciplined and researched in our questions -- that yes, it takes experts to answer these questions properly. Most people call that a proper investigation.

This is my question for Mr. Robbins: Is the mantra "Muslims hate us because of our freedoms" the reason NORAD was so ineffective or the scientific impossibility of free fall acceleration of WTC7 occurred?

Give me a break.

I know why. Doesn't everyone here?




I heard the jury is still out on science

Whats the matter with this guy? This smoking gun evidence isn't being very effective lately. I just wish we had other stuff to go with :-/

Oh well.

Its nice that we can have these events where we're the majority attendees and pat ourselves on the back for doing a good job of reminding each other ...why were attendees. I'm not entirely sure that a lot of people unfamiliar with 9/11 truth are flocking to these things. It really seems that the movement is winding down. We've completed the phase of ousting sympathetic people who don't agree with our central thesis of 'CD=INSIDEJOB', we've done a great job dividing the movement into camps of skeptics, conspiracy theorists, nut jobs, super nut jobs, and nano nut jobs. We've shouted at people making speeches; that didn't work. We've bullhorned buildings from across the street, we've called each other beforehand and decided to dress the same for our events, and still nobody will watch _insert youtube documentary_ ..

We've got 'highly respected' celebrities such as Charlie Sheen to go to bat for us.. he even interviewed the president (!) and still... nothing.

I'm at a loss. Numbers dwindle, and we say we're stronger than ever. What to do, what to do...

I'll see the hard liners this September in New York. I will pay my respects to the fallen, and officially move on.

'What to Do?" Unpack the Memorial Museum narrative.

zombie bill - you ask "what to do, what to do?"

My opinion is that the US 'truth movement' would do us all a favour by busying itself exposing the official narrative currently being cemented at your 911 National Memorial Museum - due to open in September.

Have you checked out the lecture list? A Fox news journalist opining on journalism? Someone lecturing on '911 conspiracy theories' and conflating them with faked moon loons?. Have you gone through the video interviews of the people interviewed by the 'Senior Programme Advisor' Clifford Chanin - offering 'guidance' to viewers as to how to view the Memorial?

Propaganda and one-sided information - predicated upon the emotional impact of 3000 dead civilians.

This memorial to the War On Terror is apparently going to attract more than 5 million visitors a year - many of them international. Please do us (from all around the world, who will potentially visit this site as tourists] a favour and unpack the content.

Exactly what 'narrative' is being marketed at this monument?

Looking at the content of the Memorial website gives one interesting clues as to how the official take-away message on 911 is shaped, packaged and sold to Americans - and to the world. A look at its heavyweight backers gives clues as to who is investing in it.

The question of "why"..

can only be answered with a true and impartial investigation with access to ALL documentation. The cloak of "executive privilege" and "national security" must be lifted in order to find out the true reasons why. Only by getting prime suspects under oath (to the degree they can be trusted) on a witness stand will only get closer to the truth. That's what I tell true deniers who just can't seem to face the scientific facts with their view of the world and cling to the why question. False-Flag operations is the oldest trick in the book. The "why" is because it works and continues to work as long as people refuse to believe their own government is capable of such acts.



"Motive is not an element of crimes. Therefore, prosecutors do not have to prove motive to be successful in a prosecution." Daniel Hall, Criminal Law and Procedure.

"The prosecution does not have the burden of proving motive...We needn't introduce one solitary speck of evidence as to motive." Vincent Bugliosi

People only bring up the subject of motive when their intent is to ignore the evidence. Those who believe the official story know very little about 9/11 compared to us Truthers and they know they know very little. Questioning the motive and appeals to personal incredulity(i.e. how could they keep it a secret?) are just ploys not to discuss the evidence.

Mister JONES

The original article is a dreadful piece of anything but journalism. It is on the front page, at the top of its publication,
because it is a HIT piece,
from the front
at the top.

The writers unremitting bias bleeds it dry of any possible worthiness,
treating his visit like a tourist to a leper colony.

Which reads as his prior intention, and that of msm in general toward 911 advocacy.

Great graphic design - website "Scientists for 9/11 Truth"

In the comment section, I saw this link to "Scientists for 9/11 Truth"
The graphic design is creative...

Yes indeed

A very imaginative and engaging website by some of our most credible compatriots. I'm anxious to start sending out this link.


Sat. 746 comments