This morning a friend forwarded me a strange article from the CUNY (City University New York) Graduate Center's paper.
The piece is pretty startling in at once it's admission of the failures of 'mainstream' journalism as well as the role of the Federal Reserve in undermining the economy (to at least a partial extent), but the author completely gets wrong that the Tea Party movement was usurped, who the important figures are in the 9/11 Truth movement, and, well, everything to do w/ 9/11 truth for certain.
I can't tell whether or not it's deliberate misinformation or not, and I don't have any time right now, but thought I'd share it with you fine people here who might be better equipped to set him straight.
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Researcher Jim Hoffman
This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes back to the program long time 9-11 researcher Jim Hoffman. Jim is a software engineer who has specialized in developing new algorithms, applications is computational geometry, and scientific visualization. His work has been instrumental in significant new scientific discoveries and has been featured in articles in Nature, Scientific American, Science Digest and Science News.
While busy with an event on September 10th of this year, I heard about some goings-on that resulted in bad publicity for the 9/11 Truth movement. Of course it is no longer surprising to many of us, who have been involved in fighting for the truth for years, that there would be some kind of hullabaloo just before the anniversary. This year the uproar included something called the “Kennebunkport Warning”, and a problem with this document as pointed out by some of the alleged signatories.
This warning document itself did not present any newsworthy information as far as I can see, other than the idea that some leaders of the Peace movement may have signed it. In fact, if it weren’t for these few signatures from prominent leaders of the Peace movement the warning would have been unremarkable. The message is fairly standard fare within the 9/11 Truth crowd, and is what many of us would be expected to say.
Wiki has no article on Dr. Griffin's schoarly book Debunking 911 Debunking, yet it has a thorough entry for Debunking 911 Myths. This is a problem. Can someone model an appropriate Wikipedia entry on the insipid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths and provide Dr. Griffin's work the coverage it deserves (i.e. moreso than the Pop Mechs crap!) ??
I tried to create an entry but it did not make it past the copyright sensors perhaps because of my links to amazon.com...
I wanted this link because the Wiki entry for Loose Change FC seemed slanted badly against truth, and after editing it back into shape (done) I wanted to provide a link to a Wiki article on Dr. Griffin's book but there is not yet such an article. I have no further time to complete this project.
2006 represented a turning point for all 9-11 Truth Activists in that we saw several high profile "members" of the so-called 9-11 Truth Movement escalate an already established campaign of Infiltration, Dis-Information, Ad-Hominem Attacks on serious researchers and activists, and other forms of Information Sabotage designed to discredit our work and relegate us to the dustbins of history.
There is something important that many in 9/11 truth could use in relating to the uninformed...
I have recently reviewed Dale Carnegie's classic.."How to Win Friends and Influence People." A fundamental lesson from this book is to avoid criticism and speak to people's interests. This is a hard concept to stay connected with when approaching 9/11 Truth. Someone questioning 9/11 may face name calling coming from skeptics who don't even understand the silly names that are thrown about repeatedly in a debate or discussion. It is important to avoid name calling which is simply attacking someone's character. Pointing out a label specific to a topic or focus of someones is not the same as a character attack.
By Eric Salter
There are many solid pieces of visual evidence–video recordings and photos–that show 767's impacting the World Trade Center towers. If only one of these images is authentic, the entire no-plane hypothesis is invalidated. There are absolutely no images of anything else hitting the towers despite the attention the burning WTC1 tower was receiving from a city of millions. The attempts by the no-planers to create credibility for their hypothesis by citing purported anomalies in the visual record have been characterized by a high degree of technical incompetence and illogical thinking. Because an authentic visual anomaly would only prove that that particular image was faked, and would not prove that something besides 767s hit the towers, it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis.