C.H.A.N.G.E. confronts Larry Silverstein
Thought of a better question for We Are Change and other people for politicians etc.
" Do you think it's important who financed the hijackers ?"
- It's a tough question to answer if they're part of the problem.
(IE 'Yes' - new investigation. 'No ' ? Put that with their election literature. Let them run on that.)
I think this is better than yelling 'Bohemian Grove' . You were at Bilderberg etc.
I hope the WeAreChange people take you up on it.
The Bohemian Grove and Bilderberg stuff doesn't sell getting a new investigation into 911, which is what is necessary to get the snowball rolling.
Luke is the man. The polish Gandhi. I'd like to see anyone put their work up against Luke's in this movement. You can constructively criticize his efforts and We Are Change, but you got to respect that he has done more for this movement than most of us put together. Go Luke. Thanks.
Well, this was awkward. I was hoping for just a confrontation like this, and the Evanesence music builds up the expectation.. and WHAM! They destroyed a perfectly good opportunity to ask Larry Silverstein some pertinent questions by behaving like juveniles with very little discipline over their emotions.
First off, we don't KNOW that Larry Silverstein "killed 3`000 people" - we have an insinuation that he might indeed be involved at some level, based on at least 2 items of information: 1)the "pull it" thing on PBS, and 2)the 7 billion USD insurance reward for TWO terrorist attacks. These are not prima facie evidence for his involvement however.
You can't be talking like this, while at the same time be in favor of a "new investigation." A new investigation means you accept the notion of "habeas corpus" - innocent until PROVEN guilty. Therefore, you should leave such childish tantrums aside, and try to spend the time intercepting the person in question in a diplomatic manner for pertinent and razor sharp queries that will make them sweat. Think more about what you do, before you do it. You obviously had time to plan ahead for this. You honestly think he wants to talk to you when you throw accusations of mass murder at him?
So I must say, unequivocally, that WeAreChange - as a group - is in fact hurting the 911 Truth movement more than it helps it. The group may even have members who are paid disinfo provocateurs. We know from the National Security Archives the way in which COINTELPRO was operating, and we know how easy it is for only a few "moles" to "spoil the basket" as it were, and make everyone else in the group do the same, by virtue of "group cohesion" (basically "sheeple-factor"). Notice, this is not an accusation to members of WeAreChange, but I have had this suspicion for some time now about certain high-ranking members of WeAreChange. I'm not naming any names, but I am hoping that they will produce some more reasoned questionings in the future.
Examples of excellent confrontations are: when 2 guerilla journalists from Infowars confronts Thomas Keane about facts on 911. No name-calling, very much to the facts.. and it makes Keane sweat. A+
WeAreChange is a D- at this point.
WeAreChange do have their good moments. And I liked their confrontation with uber-hawk Norman Podhoretz, up until the people lost their temper.. but that is understandable. It's worse to lose your senses than losing your temper. If you lose your senses, you'll have the risk of performing entirely wrong actions, because your senses have deceived you with wrong information and wrong priorities. .Whilst if you simply lose your temper, your senses have served you well by understanding the reality of the situation, but the temper only exaggerates the response to what the senses have already correctly deduced.
Losing your temper in these confrontations is FINE, if you can't control your emotional output. Especially understandable if you were to be talking with someone like David Horowitz or Podhoretz. AS LONG AS.. you have made some extra effort to prepare excellent questions.
Losing your senses (and temper), in my opinion, is NOT fine.. it damages your own credibility, and it damages the groups to whom you are affiliated by sacrificing our intellectual integrity for some temporary emotional satisfaction.
I felt really ashamed on behalf of the people shouting at Larry Silverstein.
"To know a thing well, know its limits. Only when pushed beyond its tolerances will its true nature be seen."
-The Amtal Rule, DUNE
questions, but your insinuation about COINTELPRO is way off base and the kind of thing that is destructive of our efforts. I'm opposed to anyone spreading these aspersions - including against video fakery or high tech weaponry investigators, or anyone.
Also, concur with first two posts - stay away from vague rhetoric about NWO and Bildenberg and put the questions about 9-11 operation directly - building seven, finances, etc.
Next time you are there putting your ass on the line, you can come up with the "good" questions and confront the bastards and post it to email. The problem with waiting for that is that we ain't going to see it. Luke and boys get the job done and we see it. Criticize it. And I enjoy it. I'd like to see your questions asked. Go out there and videotape it and I'll be glad to see it. Sucker.
Awesome post Shigawire.
Glad to see the ones that aren't afraid to speak out against the cheer leading mentality speak up and earn well deserved votes on this board. You are correct in your assertions and you speak for me personally in this matter. I was going to write something on the same lines but all I need to say is........
"What Shigawire said" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let's stop the hangouts, cheer leading, accusations while calling for investigations(amazing hypocrisy), and appeals to emotion.
Someone should blog on the best methods and we should update the 'tracker' tab.
Many hands make light work!
RRREMA=research, realize, react, educate, motivate, activate
The value of these videos could be to document potential responses to direct questions.
Being disruptive with effective questions is respectable.
Being disruptive through by hurling labels and accusations will lose the respect of the uninformed.
It would have been better to ask Silverstein if his purchase of the WTC was tied to foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
Man are you crazy. Silverstein wasn't answering no questions. He was running. The best you can do is confront him with some accusations. Asking a running man questions is stupid. Fuck Larry. And fuck running ass. The Truth is an Offense, but it ain't no Sin. Rock on.
I guess they could have tried to get him to, but it's not very likely the results would have been any different. You're probably right that that would have been the best strategy. Probably not a big deal as far as being "disruptive" or "dragging their name through the mud" or "hurting the movement more than helping it." I don't see any of that.
That's a question they can't answer.
Find others .
And don't forget to repeat until satisfied
3000 + dead satisfied.
Hey guys - did you ever think about providing a simple 9/11 Truth presence outside the network morning shows wearing at least 9/11 Truth t-shirts? (Good Morning America, The Today Show, the CBS Morning Show, Fox and Friends, etc.)
Signs might get you booted from the scene.
Maybe each Tuesday morning of every week, a group wearing 9/11 Truth t-shirts could provide a presence in the vicinity of Tv cameras that document the audience participation that often is encouraged.
Just think ... millions of viewers once a week, being introduced to 9/11 Truth - for free.
Silverstein was certainly an accessory after the fact to the murder of 3000 people. Circumstantial evidence indicates he was an accessory before the fact.
WE are the investigation. WE have ample evidence. WE can change the world, beginning with universal awareness of 9/11 truth. The governments will follow.
Great work, we are change. Dedicated, self sacrificing volunteers.
This kind of thing is exactly what I was reffering to in my blog about COUNTERPRODUCTIVE ACTIVISM:
I think WeAreChange should have some kind of test you'd have to pass to be able to use their good name, it's being dragged through the mud by these guys.
Couple of things
1. People seem to be upset that the activists didn't ask Silverstein well-phrased questions in the three seconds or so they had to confront him. How would this have been possible, exactly? This wasn't a news conference. Larry practically sprinted from the microphone to the door. All they had time to do was show him, in effect, that the blood money he raked in over the graves of the 911 victims came with a price: at the very least he will never again be able to make a public appearance without fear of being confronted with the truth. In another type of venue where, say, Silverstein was "cornered" and forced to issue some sort of reply the criticim would be valid; in this instance I don't find it very compelling.
2. Our choice is not between cheerleading and attacking. Constructive criticism is vital to improving our efforts as activists, but we can deliver said criticism in a positive way. We can criticize and encourage at the same time. I'm no cheerleader for We Are Change and frequently criticize what I see as their de facto positions on various political issues (as well as their conflation of 911 truth with said positions ) but I also appreciate their work in public outreach and in demanding answers from public figures. Throwing around accusations of of "COINTERLPRO" simply because you dislike someone's phraseology or think they are too "emotional" is WAY out of line.
In antiquity...slaves were, in all honesty, called slaves. In the Middle Ages, they took the name of serfs; nowadays, they are called wage earners. -- Bakunin
"Hey Larry - did you know 9/11 was going to happen?"
"Is that why you bought the World Trade Center?"
Seeing him evade a question like this is more effective than seeing him run from what might seem like hecklers to the uninformed.
And that's why these confrontations are so valuable - to record responses to legitimate inquires.
I don't disagree, but the end result would have been little different imo. Unless you can get these animals cornered they're not gonna show their fangs; It would have come off as heckling (ie shouting at someone as they're walking away) either way.
My main point was that the confrontation was valuable regardless of whether it was handled adroitly -- Silverstein and co. should not be able to show their faces in public without getting an earful. I also think the criticism in this thread seems a little excessive and mean-spirited. I mean, they only a had a few seconds, they were in middle of a boisterous crowd and they were not even aware Silverstein would be making an appearance. Why not express solidarity and thank them for taking the time to get out there THEN launch into the criticism. Why the nasty tone?
"Our choice is not between cheerleading and attacking"
I agree exactly with this and other similar comments/sentiments.
We have to think strategically. Keep up the good work though, it takes courage to stand up for the truth.