The Battle for the Movement Rages at 911Blogger

Thanks to user Petr Buben for taking the LIHOP frauds to task with his provocative title! The LIHOP shills are on the run, and no amount of selective moderation can conceal their disingenuous fraud. EDIT: Whoops, once again I mistake a bumped post for a new post--oh well, great to revisit these issues--thanks to Arcterus (the true faction shill) for bumping it...

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-11-11/911-controlled-demolition-movement...

"9/11 Controlled Demolition Movement"?

What's with the phrase "9/11 Controlled Demolition Movement"? Is that a term Richard Gage is using?

The petition at AE911Truth.org is calling for a "full inquiry" into the "possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of destruction"

It doesn't proclaim the WTC towers were destroyed by CD. And, it calls for the investigation to "uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01"; it implies the issue is larger than simply the WTC destructions. Given that Gage is an architect, i expect he would focus on the WTC destructions- but he's not calling for a "movement" that limits itself to that.

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7."
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Submitted by loose nuke on Wed, 11/11/2009 - 1:56pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

9/11 Controlled Demolition Movement

Well it was I who used this phrase. Let me elaborate a little bit.

9/11 Truth Movement is a group of people who either doubt the official version of 9/11 attacks or are convinced that it is a lie.

Now, the 2009 Nanothermite report of Dr. Jones and Prof. Harrit proves beyond any doubt that 9/11 is a controlled demolition, therefore an inside job.
The invaluable scientific research of Richard Gage and his foundation only confirms this. And this is also being presented in their public education campaigns and their attempts to initiate a new investigation.

Also, merely visual inspection of 9/11 attacks footage will have lead inescapably to the conclusion that it is indeed a controlled demolition.

Even though the research work of R. Gage and his AE911Truth.org clearly leads to a conclusion that 9/11 is a controlled demolition, as is obvious from their website and presentations, I think it is very wise that officially, they are demanding a NEW INVESTIGATION. Since only a new investigation can attest and certify definitively, officially, that 9/11 is a controlled demolition inside operation.

So, 9/11 Controlled Demolition Movement is a group of people who understand that 9/11 is a controlled demolition.
The intellectual potential required for making this deliberate conclusion, in my view, must be around IQ70 and higher.
Submitted by PetrBuben on Wed, 11/11/2009 - 11:30pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

9/11 was a crime...

That resulted in the murder of 2,973 people. That resulted in our loss of civil liberties. That resulted in our Government launching illegal pre-emptive wars. That resulted in the expansion of Executive Power to the point of a near dictatorship. 9/11 was not a "Controlled Demolition."

I wonder how people would react if I labeled a thread "The 9/11 Pakistani ISI Movement" or "The 9/11 Insider Trading Movement" or "The 9/11 Ignored And Censored Whistleblowers Movement" or "The 9/11 Saudi Royals Movement" or "The 9/11 Ignored Warnings Movement" or "The 9/11 Able Danger Movement" or "The 9/11 CIA Tracked Two Of The Hijackers For 18 Months Before 9/11 Movement."

Incidentally, I don't think it's a good idea to say that you need a very low IQ to see a "Controlled Demolition" considering that a lot of people don't believe it. That's not exactly how you win friends.

And thank you to Janette for acknowledging that there is more to the story.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Submitted by Jon Gold on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 10:11am.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

9/11 Truth Movement

personally, i feel an affinity with people that support transparency and accountability- whether or not they openly doubt the OCT or believe it was an inside job. 51% of Americans supported an investigation into the Exec branch's conduct before, during and after 9/11, in the 2007 Zogby poll. Only 16% believed the Bush Administration was "telling the truth" about what they knew prior to 9/11, in the 2006 NYTimes/CBS poll.

Petr - "I think it is very wise that officially, they are demanding a NEW INVESTIGATION. Since only a new investigation can attest and certify definitively, officially, that 9/11 is a controlled demolition inside operation."

Petr, as you yourself stated the above, do you think it would be wise to continue using the term "9/11 Truth Movement"? Personally, I see the term as advocating for truth and justice, not proclaiming "the truth". There's an enormous body of evidence in the public record which proves the OCT is false; but what's the truth? A full investigation is required to determine all the facts and responsible parties. By publicizing the evidence we are raising awareness and creating public pressure for a real investigation- that there hasn't been one, and disingenuous efforts are being waged to discredit the case for one, is also damning for the OCT.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Submitted by loose nuke on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 10:42am.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

Hey...

"I feel an affinity with people that support transparency and accountability," and get along with A LOT of people who don't agree with everything I say. It's those people that have attemped to, and in some cases succeeded in hijacking the movement that bother me.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Submitted by Jon Gold on Thu, 11/12/2009 - 10:49am.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

Well...

It's obvious that the "9/11 Controlled Demolition Movement" has rules about certain things. 1) You are not allowed to think for yourself. If you do, then you are labeled COINTELPRO. 2) You are not allowed to think about alternative strategies to bring justice and accountability for the 9/11 attacks even if the media and debunkers constantly use controlled demolition against you. The main focus must be controlled demolition. If you deviate from that, then you are labeled COINTELPRO. 3) You must denounce all other forms of research into the 9/11 attacks that do not include controlled demolition. If you look at any other facet of the attacks, you are labeled COINTELPRO.

No thanks. Enjoy your club.

Edit: This comment was in response to AtomicBomb who accused me of being COINTELPRO.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Submitted by Jon Gold on Fri, 11/13/2009 - 12:13pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

...

"Jon's position on CD has no merit whatsoever"

Sure it does. I take it you haven't seen every hit piece over the years attacking the movement by using the Controlled Demolition hypothesis? I take it you haven't seen every anti-9/11 Truth documentary over the years that has focused specifically on the Controlled Demolition hypothesis? I take it you haven't seen the majority of debunker sites out there focusing primarily on the Controlled Demolition hypothesis? I take it you haven't seen the "media pundits" over the years make people look like fools on television with the Controlled Demolition hypothesis? I take it you've never experienced something like this? My problem is not the Controlled Demolition hypothesis. That's not what my "argument" is about. You are trying to make it about whether or not it happened, and that isn't the argument. The argument is that since 9/11 Truth has been made synonymous with Controlled Demolition, something that is completely unbelievable to a lot of people, maybe we should try promoting other information that hasn't been used against us too many times to count. Again, according to people like you, we are not allowed to have a mind of our own. We are not allowed to have an opinion. We must do as you say, and that is more "disinformation" than anything I have ever done. Incidentally, saying that I put down DRG at every opportunity is a misrepresentation. Again, we are entitled to have our own opinions, and we are allowed to voice them.

Edit: This was in response to another Atomic Bomb accusation.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Submitted by Jon Gold on Sun, 11/15/2009 - 3:48pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

9/11 Controlled Demolition inside job attacks

Well, you are right there is more strategies, and everybody can employ according one to their will and free selection.
But to select a path of saying that "9/11 is not a controlled demolition", that is an interesting one. Where would you go with that?

Yes you can think what you want, but, privately, Jon, will you give it to us - WITHOUT strategizing - that 9/11 WTC attacks are a controlled demolition ??
Thanks :]

And YES, it is VERY WISE to make controlled demolition a MAIN FOCUS. It is one of few, or the only one HARD IRREFUTABLE SCIENTIFIC fact andevidence. This is exactly what is missing with JFK, Pearl Harbor, etc ... we should stick with the clearest arguments.
:]
http://911LetsRollInvestigation.blogspot.com
Submitted by PetrBuben on Mon, 11/16/2009 - 1:31pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

In fact a lot of varied

In fact a lot of varied research is welcome by everyone I know, and I dont know what was wrong with letting the quality research here speak for itself. Instead of that, without canvassing opinion or asking for collaboration Jon has decided he knows best and the movement has to change, and to promote
dubious weaker arguments whilst at the same time undermining CD evidence without discussing what is wrong with it.

It was Jon who decided to force his minority views on this site, it was he who decided we had to change. In doing so he has caused offense to a lot of people who do think CD is the strongest evidence.
Submitted by AllendeAdmirer on Fri, 11/13/2009 - 9:08am.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

I would be interested to hear...

One of my "dubious weaker arguments."
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Submitted by Jon Gold on Fri, 11/13/2009 - 9:20am.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

Pointing out...

How the 9/11 attacks made the Bush Administration popular enough to launch pre-emptive wars with no opposition doesn't help us? Like the PNAC said, a "catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" would enable them to do what they wanted, so I don't see how pointing to evidence of this hurts us. Fact #46 makes sure to mention "no one wants to say no to Bush now" so again, I don't understand how this hurts us.

I can tell you that the "9/11 Controlled Demolition Movement" with the obvious rules I mentioned will hurt this cause more than anything I've ever done. Thanks for nothing.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Submitted by Jon Gold on Fri, 11/13/2009 - 10:13am.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

You may have noticed that my

You may have noticed that my answer to this alluding to point#46 has been deleted.
Seems like Jon is more important to the moderators of this site than anyone else who disagrees with him
Submitted by AllendeAdmirer on Fri, 11/13/2009 - 4:23pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

9/11 Controlled Demolition inside job attacks

Jon,
9/11 is a controlled demolition. Per irrefutable scientific evidence. You can have your opinion and your mind and your views, but there is one truth, and that is that 9/11 attacks, a central issue of 9/11 Truth, were done by a controlled demolition of 3 towers.
True, then there is ramming an aerial vehicle into Pentagon, and shooting down an airplane in Pennsylvania.

All else "9/11.." as you mention are secondary preceding or following events. But the MAIN 9/11 Truth issue is 9/11 attacks, and that was controlled demolition.

I could as well almost ask you,
1. Do you know, or believe, that nanothermite was found on the site? That steel melted?
2. If so, what do you think that means?

And we should EXACTLY concentrate on the strongest scientific point, and that is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

The issues is very hard, serious and overwhelming. It almost includes psychotherapy, of each citizen, of the whole nation.
WHO ELSE but US should be speaking the truth?
And, I am not here to make friends, Im here to seek, to speak, to respect and to serve the truth.
About that last my IQ remark, i meant, that by now, it should be, and it is, technically very easy to see that 9/11 WTC is a controlled demolition.

But many people in denial will fall into several categories :
1. Disbelieve. Cannot be inside government/secret services job. No way.
2. Probably was inside, but if it was done by our government, it must be good.
3. Probably was inside, bad, but it is not wise to admit it or talk about it, since it will damage the country.

So we all might end up being partners in CRIME. That is quite a stable situation -- unless we speak the TRUTH.

Jon, it is a controlled demolition inside job.

http://911UnitedWeInvestigate.blogspot.com
Submitted by PetrBuben on Mon, 11/16/2009 - 1:24pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

Hmm...no

This claim that controlled demolition is "irrefutable" is starting to get on my nerves. I understand why people would want to focus on it. It is a very strongly-supported issue. Yes, there is even scientific evidence to back it up. But it has not yet been proved. I have little, if any, doubt that the towers were taken down via controlled demolition, but I also understand the scientific method and realize that we haven't reached a point where we can conclusively state that it was a controlled demolition.

Even if it was, we can't focus on it if activists won't handle the information responsibly. The main issue here isn't whether or not we think it was controlled demolition, its about whether or not it's helping the movement yet. We've been doing this for eight years, you guys! Where's our investigation? Where's the accountability? It's just waiting down there in the basement, and we have the key we can use to open the door and get down there to bring it back up, but all this poorly-handled focusing on controlled demolition has deadlocked the door. And the key will be useless if we don't find a way to fix the lock.

http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/
Submitted by Arcterus on Tue, 11/17/2009 - 2:23am.
»

* Login to post comments
* -1 points

yes - getting on your nerves. I know. its hard. its the truth.

9/11 WTC controlled demolition is proven irrefutably, and beyond any doubt whatsoever. Just as, 1+1=2 ... correct?

We exactly need to focus on the clearest, hard evidence scientific fact of the whole 9/11 attacks.
Only the truth will help the movement. Activists need to focus on handling this, realize the reality.

http://newsrecord.wordpress.com
Submitted by PetrBuben on Tue, 11/17/2009 - 7:53pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

Almost a year later but whatever

No, it has NOT been irrefutably proved. This is what gets on my nerves. I go and say "Look, CD is probably right, I endorse it completely, but on a scientific level it's not quite 'proof'" and everyone has to treat it like an insult. "Yes, the truth is hard." "It has been proven. Irrefutably!" "It's the best evidence." etc... Get over yourselves and realize that chanting that mantra over and over doesn't make it a fact. There are scientific standards we have to accept if we're to be taken seriously. It's things like this that allow the media to laugh at us.
Submitted by Arcterus on Sat, 07/24/2010 - 11:25pm