Some truths that must be faced by the 9/11 Truth movement and what to do about them
Why we need to focus more intently on the goal of getting Congress to authorize a new investigation into 9/11.
1) We have very strong evidence that the official story is false.
2) We do NOT have evidence strong enough to lead any prosecutor to take the case to court.
3) We will probably NOT find any new material evidence (WTC steel, dust, material proof of explosives). And even if we did find it, it would not have a reliable chain of custody and so would be mostly worthless.
4) We are not supported by any major institutions--mainstream media, academia, the gov't, etc.--though there are a fair number of individuals in some of these institutions who do support us.
5) As a movement, we do not have a clear goal.
Some conclusions that can be drawn from these points:
1) Haggling over space beams or thermite is a waste of time for most of us because neither case can be proved due to a lack of strong material evidence for either. It is fine for some people to spend time on this question.
2) The most likely way to get more evidence is through testimony taken under oath. This sort of testimony will highlight scores of contradictions and produce numerous new leads. Since no prosecutor in the US is likely to take this case to court any time soon, our best option is to press Congress for a new investigation. To those who say this is a waste of time, I ask what do you propose instead?
3) A movement without a clear goal is a movement that weakens itself. We can and should continue with all that people are doing now, but
it is important that there be a greater sense of direction and urgency. I believe that our main goal should be getting Congress to authorize a new investigation immediately.
1) When we speak in public (especially short TV slots), our lack of a coherent argument and a clear and urgent goal often makes us look like lonely kooks or confused in our thinking.
2) As individuals, many of us have similar problems when discussing 9/11 with friends or others.
A conclusion that can be drawn from these points:
The best general argument for 9/11 truth is this:
The official story is wrong and therefore we need a new investigation immediately.
This is the best general argument because it is clear, concise, goal-oriented, appeals to reason, and is in perfect accord with the scientific method.
Notice that this argument does not seek to prove what happened, but only to show that the official story must be false and that therefore we need to find a new theory through a new investigation.
This argument is relatively easy to defend because it is rational and pragmatic. It expresses urgency ("immediately") and in so doing also shows a high level of certitude on the part of the speaker/writer.
It also fits perfectly with the conclusion reached in Part One above.
Due to reasons cited above, the 9/11 Truth movement should do more to focus on the goal of getting Congress to authorize a new investigation into 9/11. This conclusion is supported by the evidence we now have and the evidence we will surely need in the future. It is in good accord with the scientific method, and is likely to appeal to a wide audience as it is clear, rational, pragmatic, and respectful of the normal political process.