5 Reasons the 9/11 "Truth Movement" Will Ultimately Fail

5: Fear - The American people, as a whole, don't WANT to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. They are perfectly content to live in the world that is fed to them by the mainstream media. A world where terror happens OUTSIDE the borders of the United States and our brave and noble government protects them from the psychotic terrorists that plague every other country on the planet. We have become far to accustomed to being a super power that is immune to the chaos and disorder that fill every other corner of the planet. They are so happy believing that their government would never do such a thing to them that they absolutely REFUSE to believe otherwise.

4. The Mainstream Media - Nearly all Americans look to one of the few mainstream media conglomerates to obtain ALL of their news. Even though nearly all of us now have internet access, and access to REAL news, the average American spends their internet time on their myspace account trying to find a date or on Pogo playing stupid games in the hopes of winning some $65 jackpot. They count, almost exclusively, on the mainstream media to tell them what is happening in the world and they refuse to believe anything that the same mainstream media outlets do not corroborate. Even the open minded folks at ATS are plagued by the "can you provide a LEGITIMATE news link?" syndrome. The mainstream media will NEVER embrace the 9/11 truth movement because it's owned by the same type of people that committed the crime and, as we know, if CNN don't say it, it didn't happen.

3. "D-Ego" - The few "heads" of the 9/11 movement that have been able to get themselves in front of the mainstream media's cameras have fallen victim to the "D-Ego". They devoted so much time to the cause with nothing mattering to them but the truth until they got in front of those cameras and that little pride beast came on fast and hard. They have become so enamored with their 15 minutes of fame that they have lost sight of the issues and have become very sloppy in their research. Most of them have come to care far more about the fact that a post from them, no matter what it is, garners thousands of replies in forums than they care about the events of 9/11. For that reason, they do not evolve with the given information and their spiel becomes tiresome and weak. The times they do get the opportunity to return to the national spotlight, they end up recycling the exact same speeches with an almost robotic quality. As a result, they are often torn apart by whomever is interviewing them at the specific time by getting stuck in an "uh uh uh" response to most all of their questions.

2. The "No-Planers" - Even if these guys ARE correct in their hypothesis that there were no planes used on 9/11; They are DESTROYING the name of the 9/11 truth movement. Almost the entirety of the American public have seen the footage of the planes slamming the towers repeatedly and MOST of them watched the events unfold the day of the attacks. Even if you can somehow prove your theory, you have a near impossible task convincing the public at large that what they witnessed with their own eyes is false. With the exception of religion, the American people are a "I'll believe it when I see it with my own eyes" kind of people. Unless you can come up with a few dozen eyewitness videos that CLEARLY show that no planes really hit the buildings that day, you guys are fighting a losing battle. You can talk cartoon cutouts until you are blue in the face, but they saw those planes hit the towers with their own eyes and you are NOT going to convince them that what they saw wasn't real. Not to mention the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who were interviewed on the news over the next few weeks who told their stories of watching the planes plow into the buildings. Your theories, even if true, fall very much into the realm of science fiction as far as John Q. Public is concerned. Hell, even fellow 9/11 truthers have a hard time buying your theory. Think of how it sounds to the average citizen. There is plenty of supportive 9/11 inside job evidence out there that the public would have no trouble accepting. However, if you give every stitch of this evidence to the average person, and even having them leaning toward the inside job belief, and follow it up with "there weren't even any planes", 99 1/2 times out of 100 you are going to fall straight into the nut job category in their eyes. Just because the evidence in "September Clues" is blatantly obvious to you, it does NOT mean that the average citizen will watch it and have an awakening. In fact, after the first mention of no planes, they are likely to simply walk away and call you a f'in idiot.

1. Fighting amongst ourselves - There is absolutely NOTHING more detrimental to the 9/11 truth community than the CONSTANT bickering amongst the truthers as to who has the "right" theory. How in the hell will ANYONE ever take the truth movement seriously if all we seem to do these days is fight with one another? Seriously, how many times have you seen, just amongst the ATS community, an official story believer say, "why should we believe you? You can't even agree with each other!"? Once again, the "d-ego" gets in the way of the matter at hand. Instead of working to get the truth about 9/11 to the American public, we are spending too much time disputing each others' evidence. Some of the more prominent of the original 9/11 truth communities online are now little more than arenas for members of different 9/11 truth groups to insult each other relentlessly. How exactly do you guys expect to ever get anything done if you devote every second of your time to trying to tear down each other? Disorganization is killing the movement and it's killing it with the quickness. Not even a year ago 9/11 was something that brought people together under a common goal. Now, that same goal is tearing those same people apart according to what "faction" of the movement one happens to align themselves with. It's almost like the civil rights movement of the 60's where groups of black people were fighting with, and killing, each other because one felt a peaceful approach was best while the other thought the only victory could come through violence. If everyone is truly fighting for the same ultimate outcome, doesn't it make much more sense to join together than to oppose each other so vehemently? It's a disgrace what the 9/11 truth movement has become. It has become so bad that even those of us that care VERY much about the truth coming out, we have sworn off the movement because we can't stand the stupid fighting and bickering that goes on almost constantly. I suppose what is truly sad is, these divides within the movement are actually getting WIDER as time passes instead of mending. It seems that every few weeks a new faction is being created to add to the battle royal. If you guys truly care about the movement, you need to put this crap aside and find a common ground to stand on. The 9/11 movement has ENOUGH opposition to deal with without you guys opposing each other.



Jasn

Yup. All true OP. Americana is too busy at Sprawlmart and watching family guy to do their collective homework. In my best New York accent 'Forget about it'

reply to post by jpm1602


Indeed.

I actually think it's "fuhgeddabowdit", or something along those lines hahaha. And hey, don't be dissin "Family Guy", it's the only great show left on the boob tube now that Quantum Leap and the X-Files are gone.


Jasn

reply to post by SimiusDei


The biggest reason it has/will fail is lack of any indisputable evidence that backs their side of the story. You have never had any "smoking gun" or anything approaching it even. Sorry. Just my opinion. If you had really compelling evidence, people would listen.

reply to post by pavil


The physics of 9/11 coupled with very credible eyewitness testimony of multiple explosions within the buildings before collapse and the totally implausible collapse of WTC 7 are pretty compelling evidence. In fact, I believe your statement very much applies to the official story. Fires so hot they weaken steel, yet, somehow don't manage to scorch the people leaning out of the holes in the buildings seem a bit unlikely to me. How 80+ floors of concrete and steel didn't manage to offer any resistance to the 20+ floors above them also seems a bit strange.

Originally posted by SimiusDei
The physics of 9/11 coupled with very credible eyewitness testimony of multiple explosions within the buildings before collapse and the totally implausible collapse of WTC 7 are pretty compelling evidence.

Painfully and obviously not compelling enough. Don't you think if your argument had the merits of being having good enough evidence that people would listen? The truth side has had theories, but no hard evidence to disprove the "standard" story. Then you fall back on the "well the evidence was removed quickly and taken to China" argument.

Since you seem to imply a controlled demolition, name one company or person that had a part of it? Then provide your evidence of that claim.

Without compelling, irrefutable evidence, you will never convince anyone.

reply to post by pavil


I did provide credible evidence. Unless of course you care to explain to me how those 20+ floors managed to meet almost ZERO resistance from the 80+ below them as they would have HAD to given the pancake collapse theory. Last I checked, physics was a credible science. Speaking of which, that little "pancake collapse" digital presentation represented the floors falling in on themselves after breaking free of the core columns in the building, that being the case, why weren't the core columns still standing as they were in the presentation?

Also, when did I mention anything about evidence being shipped to China? While I did NOT mention it, you do bring up a compelling point in-so-much as that little act by the government was very illegal. But, then again, this current government (and the few past ones) are above the law right?


Jasn

EDIT TO ADD: your statement, "credible ENOUGH" speaks volumes. It's credible, but not credible ENOUGH. That's basically like saying, "You are correct, but not correct enough that it matters." and no, I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. That's exactly what that statement says to me.





[edit on 3-11-2007 by SimiusDei]

reply to post by SimiusDei



I'm not about to get into yet another debate on 9/11 mechanics ect. Been down that road too many times.

I mentioned your "evidence" which was just a statement of your belief with no calculations ect. behind it, has not been compelling enough to persuade enough people to your side. That you get bent out of shape over that seemingly obvious deduction, is your and the "Truth" movement's problem. To me, that would make me want to find more compelling proof, but hey that's me. Many of the "Truth" movement seem think we (Non Truth movement people) are like foreigners and if they just YELL and SPEAK SLOWLY, we will understand them.

I noticed you totaly skipped your chance to provide evidence as to who exactly did the demo's, why is that?

EDIT TO ADD: your statement, "credible ENOUGH" speaks volumes. It's credible, but not credible ENOUGH. That's basically like saying, "You are correct, but not correct enough that it matters." and no, I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. That's exactly what that statement says to me.

Actually I said painfully and obviously not compelling enough , not "credible ENOUGH". You can say all you want, just saying it does not make it credible. Sorry. Provide proof, then we can talk Ok?


[edit on 3-11-2007 by pavil]

Things are getting a little heated in here. I am going out to have a good time. Take care.

25 CIA Disinformation Tactics:

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes. [Witness the Lewinsky scandal, the Elian Gonzalez, Natalie Holloway coverage]

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

This is a excerpt of a letter that was supposedly sent to the news media regarding what they should or should not talk about while on the air so as to limit discussion of talks that President Johnson had something to do with the JFK killing...


"3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should pro- vide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are

(I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in,

(II) politically interested,

(III) financially interested,

(IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or

(V) infatuated with their own theories."

itwasjohnson.impiousdigest.com...

reply to post by pavil


Ah, my mistake. You did indeed say compelling. My apologies.

However, in regards to giving you the names of who did the demolishing; I'm sorry, but no one has provided me with that information. Some believe that Controlled Demolitions LLC are responsible. However, since I wasn't in on the operation, I'm not about to claim that I am privy to that information.

As a touche' of sorts, you also very easily through off the diehard evidence of 9/11 being an inside job which is the physics. You cannot explain how the towers fell with seemingly ZERO resistance because it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain following the official story conspiracy theory.

You say that the case for an inside job is not solid because we can't provide the names of the people who are responsible for the collapse. This is a bit of a weak argument. I also cannot tell you who mailed anthrax to several citizens of the United States shortly after 9/11, but, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

That's being said. If you take my statement and substitute "compelling" for "credible", it's still applicable.


Jasn

....And while Im thinking about it ... there is a comment in a documentary called "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdochs war on journalism" (Recommended watching even if only to see this comment about 911) the comment is made in the first ten minutes. It says in a program memo that was sent on a daily basis to its affiliates, which told them exactly what and what not to talk about for that day...

"The so-called 911 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its 8th session. The fact that former Clinton and both former and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "What did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Don't turn this into Watergate."

So here we have two examples, one of the media censoring its self and spreading disinformation. Secondly, you have a example of the media participating in a cover up. You think a lot of Americans would want to know that our own President and Vice President didnt have to testify under oath and that there testimonies were not transcribed and confidential and limited to only certain commission members. What would be the need for this....theres only one reason...gives them a fighting chance if it ever does go to court after they leave office....never sworn in:no perjury....no record of conversations:never happened.

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


Not only did they not have to testify under oath, they REFUSED to testify under oath and would only testify together. That alone would lead some people to smell a rat. What fear do they have of testifying separately and under oath if they are hiding nothing? There is a reason why they separate possible suspects when interrogating them.


Jasn

i think that too(refering to the thread) , the truth about 9/11 will never se the light , even if there were 1000 smoking guns , they would find a way to keep it down by creating another crysis
im still surprised that basicly on my country no one knows what is building 7 and that it "colapsed" on 9/11.
the 9/11 truth movement

[edit on 3-11-2007 by dracodie]

6. It's been 6 years, and the movement doesn't have a shred of physical evidence of missile fragments at the pentagon, detonators at the WTC, or the whereabouts of the crew and passengers of flight 77.

the shame is


in the last 6 years, here are the death statistics for the USA;

homicide = 106,000
suicide 192,000

I'd suggest all of the truthers give up this internet argument, at this point you're all just trying to get the last word in.

I'd suggest you direct your energy, passion, intelligence and activism to reducing the amount of deaths of americans by americans

Originally posted by SimiusDei

As a touche' of sorts, you also very easily through off the diehard evidence of 9/11 being an inside job which is the physics. You cannot explain how the towers fell with seemingly ZERO resistance because it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain following the official story conspiracy theory.

As I have said, I am not going to debate an alreadly flogged horse when it comes to 9/11.

One thing that I always find strange though it how everyone who doesn't believe the "official" story is that they continually ask how the buildings collapsed as if only one floor fell onto structually sound bottom floors. It's not as if the WTC were hit on the 110th floors. The planes struck in regions they did to give a very good chance of doing exactly what they did. Do a calculation of the mass on the floors that were initally damaged in the impact and tell me how the immediate floor below that was suposed to hold all that up once failure started. Then calculate the mass of all the floors above impact. The buildings were huge and the weights we are talking are massive. Till you give me a even rough calculation, we really don't have much to argue about. You can't just say "it's impossible to explain" without first running some numbers.

I'm sorry I am asking for hard numbers, but that is one of the things sorely lacking in the "truthers" arguement. I've asked repeatedly on other threads, if a controlled demo occurred how many charges and where would they need to be placed? Never have I gotten anyhwere near a real attempt to answer that seemingly pretty major part of the "controlled demo" theory. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

The attacks took out other buildings other than WTC 1,2 and 7 yet the truthers never seem to want to mention that.

Look no further than JFK. Everyone knows that something different than the official story happened there, yet the public will never know what really happened. IF 9/11 was an inside job, it is easily on par with JFK in terms of the gravity of the event. If they have managed to keep the world in the dark about JFK for all these years, 9/11 will be no different. The system is in place and you can't win.

I honestly believe that no matter what evidence comes out or is found, it will simply be discredited. I can't fathom what evidence could ever expose "The Truth" so that the whole world would accept it. If someone can't be honest enough with themselves to admit that something different than the official story happened on 9/11, than that person probably never will.

The biggest issue I have is all the verbal insults that some give out when others don't agree with them. I don't care what someone is trying to tell me, if they insult me when I ask a question and I cannot defuse them then forget about it. I'd rather listen to people who are calm and clear in what they have to say and are happy to question their material themselves and say with the utmost confidence, "This is what I believe..."

Another thing is that a lot of Truthers really don't want to find the truth. They want their version of things to be proved right and nothing will move them from that aim. Hardly open minded.

I know all Truthers are not like that and I hope everyone still continues to ask questions but just stay open-minded, you might be surprised at what you find as a result

reply to post by SimiusDei


Hi SimiusDei,

First, I want to say that I admire your courage to come again forward with such a thread.
Second, the points you describe are in my opinion exactly the way it is.
Third, I hope you are 100% wrong in your expectation, because I am convinced that if the truth about 9/11 not comes out, and the real perpetrators come fully away with it, this world will go straight to hell, no doubt about that.
Because when they come away with this, they will definitely pull the next “false flag” and on, until the point of no return is reached, and that point comes closer and closer.
And who at the end will pay the price, well, everyone except themselves of course.
Because there is no doubt in my mind that they have already take their precautions, they have already created enormous state of the art underground facilities for surviving that kind of disasters for a very long time.
Is it not highly possible that most of those trillions of missing dollars were used for that kind of things?
I cant ever understand in any way that they come away with that to?

Remember, as stated the day before 9/11. [coincidence??????]

(CBS) On Sept. 10, 2001; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war.
Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home.
It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.
He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.
"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.
Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America.
To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Source; www.cbsnews.com...

But it is all just an opinion.