What the Truth Movement is Encompassing...8 years later

I am a member of We Are Truth Los Angeles. My first protest was on the anniversary last month. After observing the 9/11 Truth Movement for almost 4 years now, I see two very distinct occurrences emerging from the Movement - two things which are not akin to the initial objective of promoting a new investigation.
The first thing I see is the more obvious. To spare a huge explanatory sentence, it is what I would call pseudo-religion. People who have dedicated them selves to a cause they know nothing about. In the same fashion as to why I question a soldier who fights for his country (like asking a soldier if he/she believed in "liberating" Iraq prior to 03) I wonder how many of these Truthers actually believe in what they are fighting for. Or, if they were spurred into activism by 9/11, if they are truly convicted in the fight, or if they merely do it for an active hobby.
The other thing I see happening is an encompassing of many different issues. For example, how many times do you go to a 9/11 Truth protest and see signs that say "End the Fed"? Or something about FEMA camps? Those are entirely new issues. They are not constricted to only a new investigation into 9/11.
In regard to the former observation, I believe that this is roughly 50-50. While many do believe the Government was involved in 9-11, there is an equal amount who enjoy the meetings, the protests, and the social interaction.
For the second half of the analysis, I believe this to be the most beneficial thing we can hope for. Many Americans are wanting real Change in our Government, and the best solution usual given is coming from political sidelines who shout different variations of "it's there fault!" The Movement has finally made a whole host of different issues available to the public, and they are truly non-partisan.
If you want to know more of what I think, and why I'm a Truther, please check out my essay TRUTH NOW, FREEDOM FOREVER at redwolfsrevolution.com...

I haven't observed what you describe. I *have* observed people clamoring for the "truth", but it has to be the "truth" they believe in. There are dozens of different, often contradictory theories about what really happened. No matter what the truth is, most of the "truth" people will be disappointed. More to the point, they'll refuse to accept the truth, if it doesn't agree with their theory.

I don't see any way for us to get the truth. I certainly see no possibility of recognizing the truth, even if we did get it. How would we know? By what criteria would we judge whether *this* explanation was the truth? I'm thinking we'd judge by whether it agrees with our preconceived notions of what that truth is.

It is interesting though. The main argument I mean. You are absolutely right that there are numerous different theories regarding the events, and that many of the Truthers do not welcome the open debate.
Personally, I really don't believe that there were bombs in the buildings. I agree with my political guru Noam Chomsky in that obscure phenomenons can occur during major events. What I do believe in wholeheartedly is that the Government had foreknowledge...and they "guided" the events through deniable ignorance (hope that makes sense). I've also heard it from people who actually have families working for the government. On top of that the commissioners themselves have come out and said that the investigation as compromised. And that Bush and Cheney stonewalled many parts of their progress.
This is evidence enough that there needs to be a new investigation. If we were any other courthouse in the country, and the judge or prosecutors came out and said "we didn't figure everything out" we don't dismiss those statements and say "ah, well, that's good enough." No, indeed those words are given credence. Why isn't that happening now?

Originally posted by Anarchist69
If we were any other courthouse in the country, and the judge or prosecutors came out and said "we didn't figure everything out" we don't dismiss those statements and say "ah, well, that's good enough." No, indeed those words are given credence. Why isn't that happening now?

It isn't happening because 9/11 was an inside job.

Delving more deeply into the case would only expose the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. Sometimes I think that people didn't pay much attention to what happened during the years of the Bush administration. Bush started out bad right from election night and just did more and more bad, culminating in the worst bloodbath on the planet since Rwanda.

The earmarks of crime are all over his administration. I think people are just dulled down, or frightened. When the chief executive officer of the country is a mass murderer, people withdraw. They start to look out for themselves and stay out of the way. They don't want to believe things are as bad as they are.

Recently I was in a thread talking about the crash at Shanksville and I looked at some YouTube video of the local coroner, Wally Miller. On the day of the crash he said that his job had stopped after twenty minutes because there was no evidence that anybody had been on the plane.

Months or years later he is interviewed again and his whole story has changed, yes there were bodies but they were blown into the woods, etc., but it's not the story so much as his body language that has changed. He just isn't volunteering any information.

Yes, he could just be tired of all the inquiries, but you run into this sort of stuff over and over again. The 9/11 commissioners thought about charging some military officers who testified with lying under oath, but decided not to. Why? I'm sure they gave a reason, but there is no good reason, except one, they were afraid of what they might find out if the officers were forced to tell the truth.

Larry "pull it" Silverstein's story is full of holes. Not a problem for America.

The "dancing Israelis" on hand to document the event. Not a problem for America.

The OP posts this:

Personally, I really don't believe that there were bombs in the buildings. I agree with my political guru Noam Chomsky in that obscure phenomenons can occur during major events.

I don't mean to be rude but that is really classic. Watch this.



As for Noam Chomsky, I think he can only go so far in what he says. He makes worthwhile general criticisms of US policy but he would never say anything that would lead to the prosecution of anyone. Many truthers consider him a left wing "gate keeper" or saftey valve for student steam, carefully guiding the kiddies away from meaningful action.

He works for MIT, whose biggest research sponsor is the US government.

en.wikipedia.org...

In 2007, MIT spent $598.3 million for on-campus research.[136][156] The federal government was the largest source of sponsored research, with the Department of Health and Human Services granting $201.6 million, Department of Defense $90.6 million, Department of Energy $64.9 million, National Science Foundation $65.1 million, and NASA $27.9 million.[156]

With great government grant money comes great responsibility to exercise restraint in criticizing the government.

Other academics who don't have Chomsky's impeccable sense of where the end of his leash is haven't fared so well with their employers after being a little too truthful about 9/11. Chomsky should clam up completely on 9/11 and save some of his reputation. I think he could still sideline the ball on that issue and get out of the game without looking like a chimp.

"obscure phenomenons can occur during major events" That's priceless. Uncle Noam clues in the clueless, forgetting to mention of course, that he is clueless himself.


[edit on 8-10-2009 by ipsedixit]

Recently I was in a thread talking about the crash at Shanksville and I looked at some YouTube video of the local coroner, Wally Miller. On the day of the crash he said that his job had stopped after twenty minutes because there was no evidence that anybody had been on the plane.

reply to post by ipsedixit


No he didn't. Why would you say something like that? He said that he stopped being a coroner because the primary mission of a coroner is to determine the cause of death and there was very little doubt about that. he said he stopped being a coroner and was being a funeral director.

Yes, I've seen that video. Look, I'm not saying there WASN'T bombs, I just look at it this way: if the government allowed the attacks, why would the buildings need to come down completely in order to get a shock reaction from the people? Two planes coming into the towers isn't enough? The risk it would be in actually having to go into the buildings - unseen by anybody - and setting bombs up all over the place...sort of makes me wonder...that whole area is filled with people all the time. Nobody say a crew go into the buildings with equipment? Not one?

Also...I knew of an arson that took place a few years back...This building was hit with a Molotov cocktail, and 2 hours later the entire thing looked as if it had been hit my a stinger missile. The investigators were convinced that there was more than one Molotov. But I know for a FACT (trust me) that there was only one small one. So my own experience says that when something happens, all sorts of questions and speculations are going to be thrown around

Again, I'm not saying there weren't bombs, I'm just saying it's not my main argument for 9-11 Truth. As for Chomsky, I've heard the "left-gatekeeper" notion before...maybe, maybe not, but he's the one who first introduced me to America's imperialist agenda...supporting dictators and whatnot...So, even if he is trying to steer people away from the crazy conspiracy theories - he's dead on with his scathing criticisms of U.S. policy.

reply to post by hooper


Thanks for bringing me up on that point. I've been talking about 9/11 for so long on ATS that I sometimes argue off the top of my head, without methodically gathering references.

In Loose Change Dylan Avery quotes Miller as having said that he stopped being a coroner after twenty minutes because there were no bodies at the Shanksville site. That's where I first heard of this statement.

Here is an interview from another video in which Miller says that there was nothing to indicate that there were even bodies on the plane.



Here is the Washington Post quote repeated by Dylan Avery:

www.washingtonpost.com...

Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11. He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it." Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service."

Elswhere in this account, one finds that Miller eventually did see body parts, but no blood. Remember it. No blood. Eventually, scouring the woods, people did find body parts totalling eight percent (!?) of the total mass of all the people on board.

Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.

That means that more than nine tenths of each body, on average, completely disappeared. And we are talking about body parts scattered over acres, as if by an explosion. There is something wrong here. Only an intense explosion, and I mean much more than fuel igniting from a crashed airplane could do that.

Rev. Larry Hoover, a Lutheran pastor in Somerset County owns a stone cottage a few hundred yards from the crash site.

But the shock wave from Flight 93, a few hundred yards away, spewed debris through the woods with such force that it blew out all the windows and doors and shook the foundation on Barry's place.

The fireball from a plane crash a few hundred yards away from a house is not going to blow out the windows and doors of the building. Something else happened there.

Without going into an elaborate reconstruction, I'm wondering if someone perhaps hauled a truckload of plane parts to the old strip mine trench, plus six hundred pounds worth of dead bodies, or body parts, (Remember, no blood), dumped them into the trench, covered them with the plane parts and then the following morning, shot a missile into the pile to scatter the debris all over the place.

It sounds far fetched but that kind of thing has been done before. (Google Alfred Naujocks for a famous staged event in WW2.)




[edit on 8-10-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by Anarchist69
Yes, I've seen that video. Look, I'm not saying there WASN'T bombs, I just look at it this way: if the government allowed the attacks, why would the buildings need to come down completely in order to get a shock reaction from the people? Two planes coming into the towers isn't enough? The risk it would be in actually having to go into the buildings - unseen by anybody - and setting bombs up all over the place...sort of makes me wonder...that whole area is filled with people all the time. Nobody say a crew go into the buildings with equipment? Not one?

These are all reasonable questions and all of them have been discussed at length on ATS. Believe me there are answers to these questions. The fact of the matter is that those towers could not have collapsed the way they did from the plane impacts plus fire, alone. You need to look at much more detail in relation to these questions. I could recap it all for you here but frankly I just don't have the time to do it. Use the search function on ATS and in Google, which sometimes gives better results even for ATS discussions.

Also...I knew of an arson that took place a few years back... So my own experience says that when something happens, all sorts of questions and speculations are going to be thrown around

Fair enough, but only detailed investigation will bring the truth to light. With all due respect, investigate thoroughly and think carefully. 9/11 was a carefully planned scam designed to fool the casual observer.

As for Chomsky, I've heard the "left-gatekeeper" notion before...maybe, maybe not, but he's the one who first introduced me to America's imperialist agenda...supporting dictators and whatnot...So, even if he is trying to steer people away from the crazy conspiracy theories - he's dead on with his scathing criticisms of U.S. policy.

Again, that's fair. Chomsky earned his spurs during the Vietnam era and deserves them, but I believe he is way out to lunch on 9/11 and its importance.

I largely agree with the general consensus of the 9-11 Truth Movement...which is to demand of our government that we get a fair and thorough investigation - one not hindered by politicians and the elastic excuse of "security." So even if there weren't bombs in those buildings, we at least have VERY good reason to suspect insider knowledge.
The most destructive attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor and we don't get a real conclusion? Except for that other elastic reason "it's the terrorists." These vague, absolute, excuses given by our government is every reason I need to question the events. And I am upset that Chomsky hasn't given them any attention except to dispel them in the best form he could. He believes in Democracy and wide scale activism...this is the most prominent we have in this country and he's ignoring it; even going to far as to say "who cares?" ...well, the families do.

Here's a truth.

The twin towers of the world trade center did not "collapse" as a result of the plane strikes and fire, but were blown up on 9/11. That's a pretty simple truth, which as strange as it may seem, is entirely self evident.

Right there is the crux of the lie and the myth about 9/11, because that was, right there, the gist of the entire event as a psychological operation and false flag attack.

It's not complicated, it's not a theory. A simple truth. The buildings blew up, they did not "collapse".

[edit on 8-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by Anarchist69

I think Chomsky's somewhat shy and dismissive attitude to this problem, 9/11, and that of other academics, some of whom have even written papers trying to make the government's line on the tower collapses for instance, make sense, underline how dangerous an issue this is for America.

9/11 is almost like a collision of tektonic plates, sociologically speaking, in the United States. If there were a major consensus that 9/11 was an attack on America by its own government, I'm sure a sociological earthquake would follow.

At present the perpetrators of the event are only just managing to keep a lid on it. I think they are very concerned about the 9/11 truth movement. They were concerned about whether they could actually pull off the operation on 9/11. I think this is shown by the anomalous spike in the M1 money stock just prior to 9/11. (There is an ATS thread on this.)

9/11 is serious, serious business. Government will never be the same in the United States after 9/11.