Saturday, 12 June 2010

RECAP: KEY IDEAS REGARDING THE EVIDENCE: The 9/11 Blueprint for Truth Debut on Colorado Public Television



This clip includes important information and key points to consider for anyone new to 911 truth:

1. The video deals with the emotional reaction of people exposed to questions regarding the official story. Most people get angry when a traumatic event in their world view is challenged. Becoming emotional is an understandable response but not a logical way of dealing with an issue.

2. We can know who is telling the truth, either the government or independent scientists, by using science and logic. We are allowed to think for ourselves !

3. The building collapses exhibited features not at all consistent with a gravitational collapse. In fact the features can ONLY be reasonably described as products of an explosive action.

4. High tech explosive particles (nano-thermite chips) were found in every dust sample collected at the World Trade Centre site.

5. The various official scientific "investigations" were conducted by many of the same people, some of whom had clear connections & contracts with the US military or government. Some had connections to nano-thermite research. This is indicative of a cover-up.

6. There was ample opportunity to plant explosives during a 9 month "elevator modernisation" program right before the attacks. The building security also appears to have been compromised.

Remember only the truth about 911 will stop the War on Terror.

(Thanks to Debunking the Debunkers for the great video ~~)

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, June 12th, 2010.]

2 comments:

steven andresen said...

spook,

The first issue the women discussed was the anger generated by the previous few moments introducing the 9-11 Truth argument.

The girl said that anger was a normal human response.

I wonder about this.

My first response to seeing the buildings come down, it was on a TV playing in a neighborhood Pizza cafe, was that it looked like it had been blown up. My next strong response was to the news that Bush was not anywhere to be found. I thought that if anyone should be on the news saying something it should have been him. Come to find out he was secure in some plane somewhere flying to a safe location.

So, my first reaction was suspicioun and anger that Bush was not where he should have been.

Anger...came later on a number of different issues.

The girl said that anger arose out of some conflict people saw between the world views that they were invested in. So, those who thought that America could do no wrong, or Bush could do no wrong, were angered that anyone could challenge that presumption.

I wonder about this, too. It seems when you make it a matter of clashing world views you have made the conflict unresolvable because we know, supposedly, that clashes between world views are unresolvable. Itr's like conflict between religions.

So, I wonder whether I would set up the 9-11 Truth movement's argument in this way. Why make it about rival world views?

I thought a better way of making the argument was about whether it was a criminal case, to be a matter of investigation and possible prosecution, or, as Bush went on to push, an act of war where the U.S. needed to find some country at fault.

...It was an interesting video anyway...

SpookyPunkos said...

Steve,

My first reaction to 911 was that modern society was under attack. Rather than angered, I was terrorised, but not severely. I could still think perfectly, but I realised as soon as the second aircraft hit that we were under attack, that it was no accident.

I remember the news anchor on TV here being confused about the second strike. The news people initially had comprehension problems with what was happening.

I was thinking that if there were two hits there could be any number of aircraft on "suicide" missions. I was watching the TV to see what was going to be hit next.

I was caught up in the drama and the shock of the towers imploding, which I thought was due to the fire (I did not see the WTC7 collapse until a few years later !)
I was not angry.

I thought, how could people be so upset with the US that they would do something so terrible, so horrific ? It was the terror of war brought to the local neighbourhood and it was very ugly. I did not like it and I wanted to make sure this would not happen again.

Now, knowing the false flag nature of the attacks, I can see that the truth can stop further terror.

The terror at present is the spector of nuke attack. I do not want to see the establishment folks try something so heinous.

Back to my initial thoughts on 911: I first thought of the attacks as rival world views, but ones caused by specific circumstances that could be addressed- namely the Israel/Palestine situation.

Subsequently, although US Middle East foreign policy is still relevant, I find that what we are dealing with here is a criminal matter. It was criminal for starters, but now the foreign policy factor, in terms of driving the 19 hijackers, is less central because of the fact that the crime involved inside help, that this was a false flag.

At present I fully support a criminal type investigation.