Never voted on 911BLOGGER. How do you do it ?

OR

That's where you click to vote comments up or down.

merci

Everyone voting, please explain as concisely as possible how you present the idea that WTC 1, 2 &/or 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition

How do you do it online, and in the carbon world?

What articles/videos/websites do you present to people?

What are the reactions you get- the questions, objections, agreement? And how do you respond?

EDIT: Personally, I think it's pretty obvious from watching videos of the destruction of WTC 1&2, that there's no way plane damage, jet fuel/office fires and 15-30 stories of building mass could pulverize the lower stories of redundantly-reinforced steel structure and concrete into rapidly inflating dust clouds "essentially in free fall", to quote NIST- and explosives could. WTC 7 is really obvious. NIST didn't explain how WTC 1 and 2 collapsed- they essentially just said it happened, after 'collapse initiation'. And the idea that the failure of a single column brought down 7 just like a controlled demolition, when their own computer model stops short after initiation and doesn't look like the actual event, is absurd.

I think the most compelling research has been done by http://911Research.WTC7.net and http://JournalOf911Studies.com. Richard Gage makes a very persuasive case, primarily building on the research of those 2 orgs. My own summary with recommended links is here:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/911-truth-part-7-of-11-lies-about-the-collapses-of-world-trade-center-1-2-7-and-“the-air-is-safe-to-breathe”/

Whenever there's significant developments, such as journal submissions being published, I spread the news online and tell people in my own circle. If I'm starting a conversation with someone, I'll bring up whatever's on my mind- if it's the WTC destruction, I'll probably ask them if they knew a 3rd building collapsed on 9/11, WTC 7, and if they've seen video of it, and I might describe it. When attacked by debunkers while publicizing the Harrit paper, I've pointed out that high tech thermitic material was found in the dust (what's it doing there?), and that the study was published in a refereed journal, and it's being reviewed by peers all over the world. On the web, people are claiming the material is paint, or that it occurred naturally due to rust and aluminum plane/cladding being mixed- but then why has no refutation/rebuttal been published? And paint doesn't ignite explosively and produce molten iron when heated to just over 400C- and nano-engineered material with explosive properties doesn't occur naturally either. The questions raised by the paper have not been answered.

In my experience, the finer details don't make sense to people who haven't looked into it themselves, though it may make them curious. However, so do questions about- why was nothing done by the Bush Administration/CIA/FBI/DOD despite numerous warnings? Who made the insider trades and why were the investigations shut down? Why were there no intercepts/no air cover over DC? Why was the 9/11 Commission stacked w/ insiders and why'd they ignore/distort evidence and questions like these? Etc. These points are often easier to grasp- and the polls show people already know there's been a cover up, and are already supportive of a new investigation. However, people are busy, many are not political, and most people are probably still unaware that the majority of relevant facts point to powerful people in the US govt and military-industrial complex, along with their counterparts in Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, assisting, enabling and even engineering the attacks, and this is what's being covered up. That's a huge concept for a people socialized to be apolitical consumers. But people know there's been a cover up, and that's grounds alone for an investigation. Of course, if it's treason and not just incompetence being covered up, exposing those responsible and removing them from power makes the need for a full investigation even more compelling and obvious- and terrifying. But people have to come to their own realizations and make their own choices about these things. I don't think brow-beating people is going to win anyone over, and it could alienate potential allies. Already, due to the association with bogus claims and evidence, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been turned into a tar baby that credible journalists and govt accountability orgs are skeptical of.

The CD evidence is compelling to many, but it's not compelling to all. As Jon has pointed out, attempts have been made to use it against the 9/11 Truth Movement, while other evidence is usually ignored; the MSM bring up the CD claims and the obviously bogus claims, and ignore other indisputable evidence the OCT is false/not credible. Early on, people like Morgan Reynolds and Wing TV would present CD evidence, as well as bogus claims like no planes or 'only the Zionists' (aka the JEWS). When Dr. Jones appeared on the scene, Fester and Wood also appeared and numerous attempts were made to discredit Jones by association with them and their bogus claims and unfair attacks. Jon has pointed out that Press for Truth has been favorably reviewed, even by people/orgs that are more 'mainstream'. And in recent years, the work of Jones, Gage and now Harrit has gotten balanced coverage by some 'mainstream' media. It may be those in the MIC who aided and abetted/planned 9/11 figured the lie about WTC 'collapse' would be too big to fail- perhaps they didn't count on the power of the web to circumvent Establishment-controlled media. Perhaps it's too late- the NIST reports are a fraud, and no better case is going to be made- how long can they keep pretending, in this Network Age, when the younger generations are the most likely to use the independent media, and the least likely to believe the 9/11 and other lies? But activists should be aware of how certain evidence and claims have been used to discredit and divide the movement.

Anyway, i don't subscribe to the notion that CD has to be the central claim, and that those who don't promote it are traitors or shills. I have an issue with people who make bogus claims and act disruptively. I have no issue with people that make a credible case for CD, or with those who make a credible case there's been no investigation and there needs to be a new one.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

First, take the time to understand the facts, and the rest is simple from there, as then you can make your own arguments and only cite sources for facts as needed. Of course you'll find many so firm with their faith in the official conspiracy theory that they will dance around the facts regardless how you present them, but that is inevitable in any discussion of 9/11 due to the massive emotional effect it holds over people, and all you can do is expose such individuals fallacious arguments for what they are. Being able to always point out fallacies in the arguments against CD is what makes it important, as other evidence can be disputed by arguments of probability, which does take many weak arguments, but not ones which are irrefutably wrong. That said, I do recommend sticking to the fall of WTC7 in particular, as that as the towers require greater understanding of physics to come to terms with the fact that they were brought down by CD, and hence make for a more complicated discussion than that of WTC7.

----------------
KyleBisMe

This is the NEXT thing LN. I will spend time collecting or inventing both common sense and newtonian proofs of CD next.
The first thing was to establish whether the question of this vote was a widely accepted view.

Just because CD is attacked does not mean it is inconclusive. In fact it means the opposite, as the debunkers can be proven to be fallacious.
I cant believe that you guys are actually using this as a reason why CD should be "demoted."

In the BBC and other programs, CD Evidence was mentioned but not adequately presented and it was Framed within emotional arguments and many propaganda techniques. I actually think that if we ever get anywhere, the 2 BBC conspiracy files programs (and the exclusion of any other real debate on their channels) are very condemning evidence of cynical propaganda and purposeful disinfo. The nano thermite paper has never even been mentioned in the MSM as far as I know.

Personally, the most damning thing I have ever seen in these programs , Is when victims emotively accuse people like Jon of fallaciously representing them when they don't actually believe 911 truth. This is a very damning and effective strategy against 911 truth.

When I do talk about the families, I MAKE SURE to mention that I do not represent them and do not speak for them. Secondly, I have never seen a family member say that people like me are fallaciously representing them. Do you have an example of this?

Here is what I HAVE seen.

As I said, the REALITY is that there are family members who don't know how and why their loved ones were murdered. I know A LOT of them personally, and correspond with them regularly.

The BBC Conspiracy files program for a start. There is one responder who suggests we are muckraking but he was there and knows what happened.
The article on this site a few days ago http://www.911blogger.com/node/21739

I did not mean specifically YOU Jon, but the tactic is very well established and effective

REALITY is that there are family members who don't know how and why their loved ones were murdered.

I'm not going to be faulted for crying too many times to count, for doing everything within my power for people like Bob Mcilvaine, Lorie Van Auken, or the 100 other family members that managed to find out about the NYC CAN effort, and willingly put their endorsements to it (do you think only 100 feel as we do? Bill Doyle said 50% do). Or the 2004 statement that had 50 family members endorsing it.

Let them use that argument. Let them bring as much attention to the families as possible.

Edit: The families' experience with regards to 9/11 make them invaluable. I've said countless times, the family members that fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission, that monitored the 9/11 Commission and went to every hearing, that worked alongside the staffers of the 9/11 Commission, that supplied 100's of well researched questions for the 9/11 Commission to answer, have declared the 9/11 Commission a failure, and have asked for a new investigation. They KNOW what they are talking about, more than anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement, so that is a huge asset, and an argument I wish I would see more people making.

regarding that article about the Hemenways:

"One group disputes the evidence given by the United States government about what happened on September 11, 2001. The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth say they have indisputable forensic evidence that contradicts at least part of the government's accounts of what happened. The Hemenways deny the government that their son worked for is behind the attacks that killed so many American men and women.
"It just makes me angry that people can make money off of a tragedy like this by giving people ideas like it may have happened another way or all that kind of stuff," said Hemenway."

It's clearly implied, but not directly stated, that the Hemenways are objecting specifically to CD claims. Strangely, the video doesn't show them making any statements alt claims (including CD)- did i miss it?. And AE911Truth.org doesn't claims "the government" did it; they present evidence of CD, evidence the NIST reports are false, and Gage has gone on record many times saying it's not reasonable to assume Al Qaeda is responsible for the CD.

In any case, the Hemenways example doesn't support your argument, AA, as it's entirely about CD, and as usual, this MSM report ignores the great body of other evidence. The Bush Administration and now the Obama Administrations are covering up the role Saudi intelligence and royals played in funding and providing logistical support to the alleged hijackers- this is treasonous. 6000 family members joined in a lawsuit that would have made evidence public http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/29/supreme-court-quashes-911-lawsuit... I wonder if the Hemenways were part of that? Involvement by Saudi royals/intelligence isn't part of the OCT- it contradicts it. This evidence being made public would obviously raise other questions. The Bush family is very closely tied to the Saudi royals. And that's just one of the very many lines of questioning that have been left open, that the Commission ignored.
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

I was talking about propaganda techniques here. In both examples the point made is that the participant/ victim does not support 911 truth.
They are not specific about what aspect of it, just by implication the whole thing.

I was not questioning the number of family on board 911 or their efforts or Jons work on their behalf.
I was making a point that yes CD has been attacked within propaganda, but so has the notion that families are 911 truthers.
By just finding one and telling their opinion, even though the vast majority of families might be on board(I dont know) they excluded the others to distort the reality.

The point was only in the context that if in propaganda , the evidence is misrepresented and used against you, the argument you should not use it again, is false.
(Particularly the first BBC conspiracy file which used a lot of emotive suggestion that families want to let it lie (Disgraceful)

In the same way we have to come back and say look, you misrepresented the views of the families, we can also say look you misrepresented CD.

It was not an argument against the concerns of the family or their profile, it was the opposite saying just because someone twists it against you, you dont give up on it

as i've said, I've publicized evidence repeatedly on CD, and in these recent threads I've repeatedly said i think it's compelling, and it needs to be investigated. MSM hit pieces don't give a fair presentation of the CD evidence, they appeal to NIST's authority, and paint inquiry as crazy. False arguments like that work on some people, but can be easily exposed as such in dialogue with people that are rational/open-minded, and people that aren't, are unlikely to reconsider their prejudices anyway.

However, Jon has made some really valid points:
1) There's a lot of hard evidence other than CD, but the MSM focus on that instead of other evidence/claims- why give em ground? Why is the overwhelming amount of promotion being done by activists now focused on CD, when the MSM consider it fodder for their hit pieces? Is that a good tactic? Perhaps giving equal time to the other evidence is a good idea- then the case can be more easily made the truth movement isn't just about CD- and some are trying to make it that way.

2) Why DO the MSM in their hit pieces choose to focus on CD (in addition to clearly bogus/unsupported/even more controversial claims, such as holograms, '757 didn't hit the Pentagon', voice morphed phone calls)? Jon has suggested it's cuz 'collapse' is such a BIG lie, the public will have a harder time disbelieving it, even with hard evidence it's not true.

Polls already show the vast majority are already inclined to believe there's been a cover up- which may be why the MSM almost NEVER bring up the other evidence that has been widely publicized by activists; the ignored warnings, obstructed investigations, air defense failures, coincident war games, insider trading, etc. etc. Do you think the MSM will ever focus on those issues in their hit pieces?

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Can you show me where the MSM reported the Nanotherite paper.
Can you show me where the MSM actally represented CD evidence fairly and then attacked that?
Its the f**ing MSM for f*** sake !! who do you think they are or what their role is?
Are you insinuating they are not fair and balanced HOW DARE YOU.
Forget MSM they have always been ,are and always will be against us unless we achieve CHANGE
If we change message they will only refocus their lying feedback to that

I have already won this argument. Just because something is twisted against you in MSM
you dont give up on the evidence.You are suggesting this again.Your new comment says nothing new, repeats your previous comments, and does not answer mine you are nit picking

As for point 1 I have said as many times as Jon has posted links to HIS facts that there should be diversity, but not a withdrawal from CD which is the strongest thing.we have. Why keep banging on about "some people" trying to make everything CD, you were the ones suggesting changes in the direction of the movement. Jon said may things undermining CD. That is something else QED
Dont waste my time any more with your distraction from the arguments I did make. You did not bother to address them but nit picked instead.

Jon's selection of alternative evidence was tailored to his personal crusade.
It had problems but he was immune to constuctive criticism.
Dont pretend that his blatant bill posting of his facts was not part of this move to "change the way we are perceived".
along with inclusion of discredited lihop ideas which would not be acceptable to many.
You should have discussed it, canvassed opinion and asked for collaboration , but you just went right ahead with a campaign to change the focus of the movement.

Oh I know, lets all spread the info that Bush was re elected as a proof of 911 criminality? Lets see how good that one works eh Jon?

Talks about the election?

Talks about how the 9/11 attacks gave Bush massive popularity within this country, and how no one wanted to oppose him (you know... cause that helped him to launch the wars, and stuff that he wanted to do). I have no idea what you're talking about. As for posting my facts piece, I did it because I'm proud of it, not to change the direction of anything. Did you know that was even posted on Rawstory.com? And my "personal crusade" is to bring justice, and accountability for the 9/11 attacks. Justice for the families, justice for us, healthcare for the responders, and an end to the "Post-9/11 World." I didn't know that was a problem.

"No one should have been allowed to prioritize evidence on this site in such a HIGH PROFILE manner."

I've repeatedly explained to you that everyone is welcome to put whatever they want in their own blog and comment signature- as long as it does not violate the rules. What is in your own blog and comment sig reflects the individual's views, not 911Blogger policy.

How is it that you are still making that claim?

Obviously, you've noticed that CD evidence is the single-greatest focus of users at 911blogger in recent years, and there's more news posted about CD by more users than any other single issue. Why does it bother you so much that Jon is attempting to reintroduce some balance, and offering his own opinion on the value/dangers of this shift in the movement- which did not start happening until 2005/6?

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

"Obviously, you've noticed that CD evidence is the single-greatest focus of users at 911blogger in recent years"

That may have been true in the past, but an analysis of articles that made it to your front page here in the last month shows:.

There have been more articles demonstrating Islamic terrorism than CD Evidence.
There have been more articles giving credence to Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds who refuse to support CD(Thus undermining it) than articles with pro CD evidence.
There have been quite a few articles about JFK feeding the 911truth=Conspiracy obsession myth.
There has also been concerted promotion within commentary of the idea that there is an over emphasis on CD.
There has been severe hounding of people who question the existence of ANY evidence that proves Muslim terrorists had some responsibility for the 911 attacks .

You have also managed to miss this recent valuable addition to the conclusive nature of CD
http://liamscheff.com/daily/2009/11/06/collapse-or-explosion/

You may argue that this is in part because of the Nidal Hasan story which is current news, so I will reserve judgment to see if this is a policy change or just a 'bad month' for CD here.

Not articles giving credence to heroes Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds... say it isn't so... whatever are we to do?

Straight in to answer the point rather than attack minutiae as always JON.
BTW you still have not answered my suggestion that even if you could prove all the links to Islamic terrorists on 911 that you wanted to, by highlighting that evidence rather than concentrating on criminality of the us in 911, You are sapping the motivation of would be truthers to want to do anything new about 911.

Nafeez Ahmed, one of the biggest contributors to 9/11 Truth in the history of this movement, someone that focuses on "Islamic terrorists" (or "our terrorists"... or to put it another way, "criminality of the us in 911") is a Muslim?

The "War on Terror" as a farce using the fact that elements within the U.S. Government use "Islamic terrorists" to commit terrorist acts has no value with regards to changing "what is wrong in the West?" Sorry, but I don't agree. Incidentally, I know the difference between "Islamic Terrorists" being funded, trained, and used by our Government, and legitimate "Islamic Terrorists" who commit terrorist acts because of America's Foreign Policies in that region, as well as Israel's. I have no idea what you're talking about.

The "Heroes" will be the ones who by their actions cause change.
Change that I assume we all agree is necessary?
In the long run, the 'Heroic' nature of so called whistle blowers who are also simultaneously undermining evidence of US criminality in 911 is yet to be established.

That they were underminding evidence of U.S. criminality in 9/11. If anything, their actions, and information support it. Oh, you mean because they don't openly endorse Controlled Demolition... did you know that OTHER criminality took place on the part of the U.S. and 9/11?

Have you bothered looking under "recent headlines?" There are 27 headlines listed. 16 have to do with "Controlled Demolition." Sorry, but it is true. Sorry that some articles not having to do with Controlled Demolition were posted in the last month. Heaven forbid that ever happens.

By the way, I beat a professional 9/11 debunker in a debate.

Edit: Take notice of what this recent article by Curley focuses on.