Wednesday, 22 August 2012

Dawson: 911 Truth Can't Go Forward Until the Disinformation Kooks are Dealt With

The 911 kook movement has done more damage to the truth of 911 then the government's official story. I never have a problem getting people to accept the government is lying, what I have a problem with is people associating the only alternative to 911 officialdom as being a bunch of nonsensical kook propaganda namely a missile hitting the pentagon or worst yet no planes at all or generic groups like the illuminati etc not the FBI CIA or Mossad which actually exist and of which there is evidence for being involved.



Dawson is talking about the 'disinformation kooks' who are poisoning the well by pushing outlandish, and baseless theories, as opposed to the disinfo trolls that are defending the official story. One thing is for sure, this whole process is slowly but surely providing a great education for many people - teaching them to be independent thinkers!

Dawson's summation is worth reflecting upon. We must look at the data and the players involved, whilst being prepared to play devil's advocate, and ditch hypotheses that have a low chance of being correct. The Pentagon missile theory makes little sense considering the wreckage and damage to the building. The most likely hyopthesis, one that accounts for the majority of the crime scene observations, would favour using a large airliner as the weapon.

For the best empirical evidence that seals the 911 truth argument, consider the work of the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth who focus on the scientific evidence associated with the World Trade Centre demolitions:



For information regarding those actually involved in 911 murders (as opposed to the official story) look for other material put out by Ryan Dawson and also Kevin Ryan (Google it).

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, August 22nd, 2012.]

2 comments:

steven andresen said...

spook,

I think the main point about 9-11 does not have to do with the possible explanations for what happened. We should not be making a case for more probable and less probable scenarios.

The main point is that there has not been a fair examination of all the evidence. This is to argue that the examination that was done, upon which the official story about what happened is built, was not fair.

The reason that the official story will always take precedence in the history books is because it can claim to be based on evidence whereas all the stories coming out of the 9-11 Truth movement are not.

It will not matter to the historians whether the 9-11 Truth people have shown that a missle could not have done in the Pentagon, and the official story could not have been true either.

The 9-11 people will be considered no different than the people who suggested missles, or holagrams, or alien space weaponry.

Again, the main point is that the event was not treated as a crime scene where evidence needed to be collected and a case made. The official story was designed not as the findings of a criminal investigation, but as the making of a case whose results were already predetermined to find 19 Muslims guilty.

s.

SpookyOne said...

S,

It is true the official story of the 911 attacks presented a narrative to find Muslims guilty and that current history books will follow the official line while marginalising dissenting evidence. > However, I do think it is very important to make a distinction regarding the kind of logic and evidence being put by the conspiracy 'theorists' because one set of claims, as pointed out by Dawson, tends to undermine the cause.

A fair look at all the evidence, which you mention did not happen, should reveal that there is a sound basis for disbelieving the official story. Flights of fancy into ray beams and holograms will cause naive observers to find no hard evidence thereby discrediting the truther claims as a whole (in their minds) which is a common way of processing information for most people even though it is illogical. Dismissal of evidence via association.

It is worth pointing out this issue for anyone who has decided to look into the 911 attacks on the chance they realise their history books may not be telling them the whole truth - that there is a concrete basis to throw parts of their world view in the trash can.

Hard evidence does exist to show explosive demolition at the WTC buildings. Proof such as this is lumped as highly probable of being correct (99.9%) as opposed to ray beams of which there is no clear evidence. In determining any other material, an interested person should be alert to hard evidence based scenarios versus unsubstantiated hypotheses. It's a fair warning because most people tend to speculate about things when exposed to material evidence.

Ultimately exposing the lies, falsehoods, and propaganda, IMO, is essential in helping fight against the present mafia system we all live under. The more people that know the better -especially those writing the history books.

Spook