Revolutionary Truth

The truth is out there and it’s accessible to anyone. The coffin of the official story has been nailed shut. The Popular Mechanics article and book in 2005 was the last and best effort to win the 9/11 argument on a rational basis. That effort was subsequently shredded by David Ray Griffin’s book ‘Debunking 9/11 Debunking’.

That’s it. That’s all they got. Read the Popular Mechanics article and Jim Hoffman’s critique, then make up your mind.

I heard from a radio personality who said he was unsure about 9/11 until he read the Popular Mechanics article. He said he thought the article was such a transparent attempt to smear those who questioned the government that he was less likely to believe the official story after he read it.  The Popular Mechanics article was at least a rational argument based on facts.  It used some straw men tactics, but it stayed away from name calling and ad hominems seen in most debates.  After the points in the article were soundly defeated by David Ray Griffin, the debunkers were far less willing to openly debate the facts of 9/11. 

The government sponsored two studies on the World Trade Center disaster.  First the FEMA report, then the NIST report. How did we get two reports? The FEMA investigation was an underfunded effort led by the American Society of Civil Engineers that released its report in May 2002. After scathing criticism from the Fire Engineering community and others and the editor of Fire Engineering, Bill Manning, referring to the investigation as a ‘half-baked farce’, the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) began another investigation funded by Congress. Three years later, NIST released its final 10,000 page report at a cost of about $20 million.  The report was ludicrous.  It hid its absurdity among mounds of superfluous and inconsequential data. Jim Hoffman took apart the NIST report piece by piece in his essay ‘Building a Better Mirage’.  Going through it was no small feat, but Mr. Hoffman offered an insightful critique of a report that few have read or reviewed. We went from a half-baked farce to a fully-baked farce.

Recently, the History Channel produced a 2-hour program that discussed 9/11 questions.  It was a hit piece on 9/11 Truth. This show can be seen as the last gasp of the debunkers debating the facts. It utilized many of the people who contributed to the Popular Mechanics article but was more slanted and condescending to those questioning the government. It was basically in infomercial for the Popular Mechanics book. The show used many video and editing tricks to make the people questioning the government look different and less credible than the PM crew. It also leaned heavily on the psychological analysis of people that don’t accept what the government tells them.  Alex Jones appeared in the show and was seething with anger after seeing it.  The show was reviewed on his website.  Here is his radio program discussing his treatment and the History Channel show in general:

The PM crew promoted themselves as ‘experts’ not only on the History Channel show but also on the BBC program ‘Conspiracy Files.’  The British documentary ‘911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy’ (shown below) focused on the BBC’s selective and distorted coverage of the events of 9/11.  Special attention in this film was paid to the BBC’s ‘Conspiracy Files’ which aired on BBC 2, February 18th 2007 and omitted much of the better 9/11 evidence. 

So much for debating the facts. Now the PM crew are the ONLY 9/11 experts allowed to speak on national television. Whenever the subject of questioning 9/11 arises, the PM crew are always available to discuss the 9/11 Truth movement, the movement’s agenda, and of course the flawed psychology of those who would question the government.  Here is a typical 9/11 “debate” featuring the PM crew that appears on TV from time to time:

Message to PM crew: you have been debunked. Stop appearing on TV pretending you have something noteworthy to say unless you can agree to an INDEPENDENTLY moderated debate (your History Channel infomercial doesn’t count) with David Ray Griffin or someone else who knows what they are talking about.

There is now a clear divide among the public: those that are aware of the evidence and those that are not aware. Those that are aware of the evidence can see the overwhelming and obvious flaws in the official story as well as clear evidence of explosives in the three WTC buildings that fell. The task of those that are aware is to push that dividing line further and further by educating others and exposing more people to the evidence.  I have little patience for those that refuse to look at the evidence and refuse to question the government. There is nothing wrong with looking at the evidence and still believing the official story. From Richard Gage’s experience of giving presentations on the WTC collapses, those that hold on to the official story after seeing his talk number very few.  Those that refuse to look at the evidence don’t deserve to live in a democracy or the right to vote.  Governments will always attempt to tell its citizens what to think, but the Founding Fathers assumed that free people would be willing to educate themselves on the issues and would be willing to question and disagree with their government.