"The truth movement needs to focus on what is simply undeniable"

Truthers, which simply undeniable evidence/facts would you put in a pamphlet if you had limited space to persuade others to become a truther? You cannot put youtubes in thea pamphlet and you are expected to document your sources.

First and foremost, I would just concentrate on the OS being wrong. I think the worst thing we can do is start spitting out all of these theories, as that turns people off right away. If we can just show them that the OS is wrong, then they will hopefully research on their own and start to ask their own questions. They are much more likely to agree with something if they come up with it on their own. So, just plant the seed, a seed that the OS couldn't be true.

Then, I would point to WTC7. To me, WTC7 is the most damning piece of evidence.

For little things, I would point out the "put options" that wer placed on the companies just prior to 9/11, basically betting that these companies would soon fail. I would also point out the fact that the Bush admin apposed the 9/11 commissoin from the start. They then underfunded it and gave it a quick a deadline. Bush and Cheney also refused to meet with the commission and when public pressure made it to where they needed to speak to the commission, they put some crazy restrictions, such as meeting together, in private, with no recording and not under oath. I would then point out that the commission was hardly independent and instead, it was staffed with industry insiders and even a Bush admin official, Philip Zelikow, as the Executive Director which the most important and influential position. Mr. Zelikow is also a personal friend of Condi Rice, as well as a business aquaintance, having co-authored a book with her. The last thing about the commission that I would point out, is that one panel member quit in protest, stating that the whole thing was a "white-wash" (or somethign similar, I can't remember word for word), basically labeling it as a sham and that it was pulling the wool over the eyes of the public.

I would point out the Bush connections to both the House of Saud and the Bin Ladens. I would also point out that a Bush family member was the head of security for the WTC complex. This security company had just installed a new security system in the years before the attacks. Were they installing demolition gear?

I would also point out the massive cover-up operation taking place, which is a dead give-away that something is up. The media refuses to air anykind of logical oposition to the OS, instead focusing on only the most absurd theories that are easily debunkable, then suggesting that the entire truth movement believes in those absurd theories, such as aliens or no planes. If you can debunk the "no-planes" theory, then you can debunk the entire truth movement.

There is also an active attempt to demonize anyone who questions the OS. This makes scholars, officials and others who have the least amount of common sense, affraid to say anything. If you want to keep your career, livelihood and reputation (sometimes life), then you won't question the absurd OS.

Then, you have the issue of disinformation, which is extremely prevalent. Why would disinformation be prevalent if their is nothing to hide? Why the massive, energy and resource intensive effort to hide something? I think the government and media's actions and inacrtions after the fact, is one of the most damning pieces of evidence that is extremely telling as to who may be responsible.

Also, I would point out the fact that Osama Bin Laden claimed he didn't do it, which would defeat the whole purpose of a terrorist attack. The whole point of a terrorist attack is to get a point across. In fact, the only time that he did admit it, it was on a tape "found" by the CIA and a lot of experts don't believe it to be Bin Laden. It doesn't even look like Bin Laden, except very vaguely.

These are just a few of the things right of the top of my head. I'm sure there are more, some even more damning but this is what came off the top of my head. I think it is paramount that people research on their own, which is why it;s important that we plant the seed only, instead of getting into wild theories. If they can conclude on their own, they are much more likely to believe it.

--airspoon

That is some really good work

However, I am looking for things that I could use that are all ready to be copy/pasted into the pamphlet. I'm looking for the complete sentences that can be used verbatim


There are a lot of architects and engineers I could contact via e-mail. My father is the manager of a home-building company.

Originally posted by airspoon
I would also point out that a Bush family member was the head of security for the WTC complex

Oh dear, here we go again with the standard truther lie - a Bush family member was not head of security of the WTC on 9/11. Why do truthers keep posting this lie?

The media refuses to air anykind of logical oposition to the OS,

So just which of these theories, all conspiracy theories put forward by truthers do you want them to air?

Holographic planes?
Pod carrying, missile firing planes?
nanoo nanoo thermite was used?
explosives were used?
The helipad at the Pentagon lifted up and a missile was fired at the Pentagon from it?
Flight 77 was landed somewhere, the crew and passengers were transported to the Pentagon, along with their luggage, aircraft seats, aircraft engines, aircraft undercarriage, etc etc then a missile was fired at the Pentagon?
Mini nuclear weapons were used to blow up WTC 1 & 2?
Beam Weapons were used on WTC 1&2?
etc etc.

All these are conspiracy theories put forward by truthers, no one else. So which ones should the MSM publish

Why the massive, energy and resource intensive effort to hide something?

What massive, energy and resource intensive effort are you talking about?

I think the government and media's actions and inacrtions after the fact, is one of the most damning pieces of evidence that is extremely telling as to who may be responsible.

I think it is paramount that people research on their own,

Yes, and they will find truthers posting all those silly conspiracy theories above, or "scientific research" into the WTC like this:

reply to post by dereks

Oh dear, here we go again with the standard truther lie - a Bush family member was not head of security of the WTC on 9/11. Why do truthers keep posting this lie?

Securacom, the company that provided security for the WTC, where Marvin Bush was on its Board of Directors. What foolish inaccuracies were you suggesting again? More lies to try and distract from the truth? Sorry buddy, we deny ignorance here. It's funny how you lie about me lying, kind of ironic, don't you think?

So just which of these theories, all conspiracy theories put forward by truthers do you want them to air?

Yeah, pretty much all of those, though they are put out by nuts, agents or not-so-serious researchers. There are always crazies in every field, though they certainly don't represent the whole field of study. Why not give a little air time to the much more plausible theories, instead of ignoring them all together? Most truthers don't believe in those wild theories and by debunking them, you aren't debunking the truth movement. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that government provocateurs instigate those theories.

What's even worse, the official conspiracy theory, which is just as rediculous as those listed by you, is championed by the media, government and sheeple without any of these entities giving any kind of time to someone who can easily debunk such foolishness.

So, you were basically caught lying in your first point, and your second point was irrelevant and sensless. It's like claiming that all Christians are full of BS and then citing the Westboro Church as the reason.


--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
Securacom, the company that provided security for the WTC, where Marvin Bush was on its Board of Directors.

You said he was in charge of Security, the Wiki article and you states he was on the board of directors - so lie 1 from you.

If you had actually bothered to read that wiki article YOU posted you would have seen

"Securacom received a contract to provide electronic security services for the World Trade Center in 1996. The contract ended in 1998.[4]"

So a Bush was not in charge of security at the WTC...... but you knew that!

reply to post by dereks

You said he was in charge of Security, the Wiki article and you states he was on the board of directors - so lie 1 from you.

What makes you right?

Looks to me Wiki leaks has contradicted it’s self again. So why don’t you at least show everyone why you are right and Truthers are all liars as you always claim?

Bush was on the board of directors of Securacom from 1993-2000. He is a former director of HCC Insurance Holdings.[citation needed] HCC, formerly Houston Casualty Company, is a publicly traded insurance company on the New York Stock Exchange. He appears in the 2008 award-winning documentary on Lee Atwater,

en.wikipedia.org...

I find it interesting $100 million was spent on investigating Clinton's blowjob but only $3 million investigating 9/11. That, together with the fact Cheney wouldnt testify under oath, and only with Bush by his side, AND in secret. What were they hiding and why the lack of interest in investigating 9/11, considering 3,000 people were murdered on that day? Why the rush to get what was left of the WTC's shipped off to China? Very, very suspect IMO.

reply to post by dereks


When you are in charge of a company that is in charge of security for a complex, you are in fact in charge of security for that complex. Furthermore, the security contract coincides perfectly with what would be expected if you were using your upgrades to hide detonation or demo gear. After all, these things take time to plan then carry out.

There was an IT guy who worked for a company in the top floors who claims that the WTC, at least his building (the North Tower, I believe) had a powerdown the weekened prior to 9/11. Because he waited until the weekend to back up his servers, he was at the building when he noticed "workmen" carrying large spools of wire in and out of the building. The powerdown was apparently to install new network cables. This could have been the final set up, after the initial setup when the "security system" was installed. Try as he might, he was ignored by the 9/11 commission.

Now, this guy could have been lying, the whole sotry could have been fabricated or the they really could have been installing network cable, as is it just circumstantial evidence. However, when you add it to everything else, it's things like this that are important and certainly grounds for investigative panel, a real, independent and transparent one.

There are far too many questions that have gone unanswered, ignored or answered with a "trust us". This alone is a reason to have an investigation. We investigate Bill Clinton for his affair, yet we fail to investigate the deadliest terror attack on US soil? Such a notion is absurd.

Furthermore, in order to believe the OS, we first have to throw out science and then we have to be able to trust the authorities, to include the Bush admin because that is what it boils down to, "trust us". Need I remind you that this is what they said about Iraq, and we all know that they lied through their teeth then. If they lied through their teeth about Iraq, why on Earth would it be such a stretch to assume that they are lying about 9/11? If they sent thousands of young men off to Iraq to die for business interests in Iraq, then why on Earth would it be a stretch to assume that they would kill a relatively small number of people on 9/11?

Even on the face of it, you have to admit that the whole situation just stinks. Even official conspiracy theorists see that and if they don't, they are either too ignorant to even see straight, or they are lying.

We have motive. The removal of asbestos would have been far too costly. There was unused space in the towers and they were costly to operate. 9/11 also allowed large corporations to make big bucks from the subsequent wars and it allowed certain interests to get a strong foothold in the ME. 9/11, in conjunction with the anthrax attacks, also allowed the passage of the Patriot Act and other policies designed to control the American population. It basically allowed the government to take away our liberties for a little percieved security and has made billions for certain companies in the government's favor.

Then, you have Larry Silverstein, who leased the complex, though he wasn't the highest bidder. All of the sudden, the highest bidder backed down and Larry got the lease. Not long after, Larry's building collapsed and he made out financially. His payoff was extremely well and would have been much better had the insurence been forced to pay the entire amount that he was asking for. Regardless, he still made out financially, as he only put up I think around $12M of his own money and made billions, all in a matter of a year or so (to include the deal).

All that is just motive and there is even more, though for the sake of time and space, I want list the entire motives. Those motives alone would be more than enough for a search warrant and even possible indictment.

Then, we have Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane and didn't have very big fires, yet still fell. It fell and it wasn't even next to the twin towers, as it was on the other side of the complex, seperated by other building, which recieved far more damage and didn't collapse. Oh yeah, that building wasn't leased by Larry Silverstein.

Not only that, but the constant impeding on truth after the fact. This to me, is the most telling. If you have nothing to hide, then why oppose an investiagtion? Wh underfund it? Why refuse to be interviewed under oath? Why refuse to meet with the panel alone, without your buddy to ensure your stories are straight? Why would the media ignore any viable opposition to the OS? Why chastise those that do question the OS? Why impede any kind of investigative leitigation, even when it is against a foreign nation, as the Obama admin has done? Why promote all those who failed? There is apparently something to hide and if that's the case, then we surely need an investigatoin. For that matter, why even oppose a real investigation, if for nothing other than to shut everyone up by answering some basic questions?

Come on dude, deny a little ignorance at least one in a while.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon

Securacom, the company that provided security for the WTC, where Marvin Bush was on its Board of Directors. What foolishness were you spouting again? More lies to try and distract from the truth? Sorry buddy, we deny ignorance here.

Then you must simply deny yourself. Marvin Bush stepped down from the Board of Directors of Securacom in June of 2000. And Securacom, does not provide security, it installs security systems and in the end had to be excused from the contract as a primary contractor and became a sub-contractor to E.J. Electric and Electronic Systems Associates for work on the WTC complex.

I would also point out that John O'Neill was the head of the security department for the WTC complex and their department was assisted by the PAPD.

reply to post by impressme

Erh what?

Securacoms contract to provide security expired in 1998, Marvin Bush stayed on the board until 2000. Just because a company loses a contract, doesn't mean that the whole board is summarily fired.

reply to post by airspoon

There was an IT guy who worked for a company in the top floors who claims that the WTC, at least his building (the North Tower, I believe) had a powerdown the weekened prior to 9/11.

That would be Mr Scott Forbes...and in the end he admits the power down was for less than 20 hours and only on a few floors of his building. His original story was a complete power down in both towers. However, each time he is contradicted by facts, his story changes.

Originally posted by Nonchalant
I find it interesting $100 million was spent on investigating Clinton's blowjob but only $3 million investigating 9/11. That, together with the fact Cheney wouldnt testify under oath, and only with Bush by his side, AND in secret. What were they hiding and why the lack of interest in investigating 9/11, considering 3,000 people were murdered on that day? Why the rush to get what was left of the WTC's shipped off to China? Very, very suspect IMO.

Well, for starters, the 9/11 Commission recieved an additional $9 million on top of the $3 million, and actually ended up returning $1,4 million when it concluded.

Second, those money doesn't include the money spent by the FBI on its largest investigation to data, PENTTBOM.

Second, the WTC remains went past Fresh Kills landfill for scrutiny before being sent anywhere.

reply to post by vipertech0596

Marvin Bush stepped down from the Board of Directors of Securacom in June of 2000

Exactly. Nobody was claiming that he was iin charge of security during the attacks and such a notion is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the company, under his direction could have installed demo gear prior to 9/11, which the time frame is perfect.

And Securacom, does not provide security, it installs security systems and in the end had to be excused from the contract as a primary contractor and became a sub-contractor to E.J. Electric and Electronic Systems Associates for work on the WTC complex.

I'll help you out because you clearly don't understand what you are trying to talk about.

These companies don't simply install a security system and then leave. It's not like getting a system for your home. Instead, they install and run that security system. They contract out to the companies in which they install the systems for. Therefore, the company that Marvin was in charge of, was in charge of security for the WTC prior to 9/11 and in a time frame that fits a scenario of planting explosives or prep for the explosives.

Then you must simply deny yourself.

I think you should maybe understand what you are talking about before propagating ignorance. You clearly don't understand the situation at hand, yet you pretend to. It's your credibility though, not mine. However, I'm not hating on you and I can completely understand how your confused, as most people propagating the OS are highly confused and don't understand what they are talking about, hence their support for such a wild conspiracy theory.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Like I said, when you decide to start denying yourself, get back to me. Your posts have only proven that you are in denial of the facts.

Then you mention the ability for them to be able to plant explosives.......again showing that you do not understand the topic. Planting explosives to bring down a building the size of the WTC Towers without anybody noticing is not realistic.

reply to post by roboe

Well, for starters, the 9/11 Commission recieved an additional $9 million on top of the $3 million, and actually ended up returning $1,4 million when it concluded.

That is correct, though the extra $9 million was heavily opposed. The only reason why it was finally approved after being denied, was because of public pressure. Then, the money that wasn't used, was because the deadline came so fast and the commission was ignoring so much and refusing to investigate everything important, I'm surorised that they only had that much left.

So, the committee was only allotted $3M at first, which is crazy considering the instance in which it was charged with investigating. The $3M was all that was intended for the panel. The other $9 was heavily opposed by the Bush admin and due to public pressure was finally awarded, though the deadline was still absurd. So, even with the $12M allotted, it was still miniscule in comparison with other panels that were charged with investigating relatively unimportant issues.

$3M, are you kidding me?


--airspoon

reply to post by vipertech0596


I never heard him say that the power down was both towers. Furthermore, what he has always stated, was that he is only aware of the powerdown in his own building, as he has no way of knowing about the other towers. The amount of time is irrelevant, as the Securacom incident could have been the brunt of the work. The weekend prior to 9/11 could have ju7st been final preperations or checking to make the initial setup was ready to go.

Again, I followed this closely when he came out years ago and I have never heard him say that he knew both towers had a power down. What I have heard him say, is that he didn't know about the other towers because he could only answer for his own floors in his own building.


--airspoon

Edit to add:

Of course planting explosives to bring down the building is realistic without anyone noticing. They could have easily done it when they were installing the new security system. Nobody would have to know that they are planting explosives and they would have access to the entire building in each building. Furthermore, they didn't have to bring down the buildings in a conventional method. It's absurd, foolish and ignorant to think that they couldn't plant explosives in the building when they were installing the new security system. You think everday office workers are going to be inspecting the workmen and watching over their shoulders? You do know that the explosives wouldn't look like the bomb with a wick sticking out. The office workers would never know, especially if it was done when maintenance was scheduled, particularly the changing of the security system, which would give them access to the guts of the building.

I find it funny how claim I'm ignorant for one thing, then you are proven wrong so you then claim I'm ignorant for something else, when that "something else" as flimsy as the first. Which one of us isn't denying ignorance? lol


--airspoon

reply to post by dereks
Bush's relative nolonger worked for the WTC, but did still have ties and commitment to the WTC security ,as the company he worked for had been dismissed, but had obligations to complete contract.

reply to post by roboe

Securacoms contract to provide security expired in 1998, Marvin Bush stayed on the board until 2000. Just because a company loses a contract, doesn't mean that the whole board is summarily fired.

Source please?
Second line…

Originally posted by airspoon
Exactly. Nobody was claiming that he was iin charge of security during the attacks

Except that you did...."I would also point out that a Bush family member was the head of security for the WTC complex."

He was NOT head of security, that is a lie, he was on the board. He was not even on the board of the company in charge of security during the attacks!

What is relevant is whether the company, under his direction could have installed demo gear prior to 9/11, which the time frame is perfect.

He did not direct the company, he was just a board member. and they could not have installed the tonnes of explosives needed with no one noticing!

Therefore, the company that Marvin was in charge of, was in charge of security for the WTC

Why do you keep repeating that lie? He was NOT in charge of the company!

He we have a typical truther, not at all interested in the truth, but just interested in posting lies, even when those lies are pointed out to him!