A different picture on our front page?

[John. M]

Hi all,

As the "plane and pod" theory generates so much controversy, would there be any benefit in using a different picture on the front page of our website.

Perhaps something like a good picture that clearly indicates controlled demolition of one of the towers. A picture that emphasises the detonator charges going off as the tower collapses or something like that? Or even (or also) a picture of the firemen describing the collapse with some accomanying text? A banner quoting Larry Silverstein ordering the "Pulling of building 7" in the WTC plaza.

I'm sure someone must be able to produce something like that with all the footage and pics out there?

I think the controlled demolition issue is really something to focus on and that visitors to our website should be made aware of pictorially from the outset.

These are suggestions and not intended as derogatory remarks.

Best wishes to you all,

John. M

[ian neal]

This was agreed at Sunday's meeting and I believe Jim (one of our web techies) is on the case.

[Jim]

Did anybody suggest a replacement?

[John. M]

"This was agreed at our Sunday meeting..."

Many thanks,

Looks like we're on the same wavelength.

Best wishes

John. M

[xmasdale]

I agree that in principle the picture on the front should be something that all 911 sceptics feel supportive of and that therefore the front of Confronting the Evidence is unsuitable as it highlights the pod and flash controversy, which we will never all agree about.

But suggestions about something which illustrates controlled demolition of the WTC could be controvertial too. We must remember we are an alliance of MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose) and LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) people. It is probably the case that those who are most involved tend towards the MIHOP view but many of them, myself included, originally started with a LIHOP outlook. If we want to encourage folk, particularly folk with respectable reputations, to stick their heads above the parapet, we should not imply that by so doing they endorse an "extremist" MIHOP line. I can think of certain leading politicians for example who might be persuaded to speak out only if they could be reassured that their doing so did not imply they supported a MIHOP line.

Controlled demolition is clearly a MIHOP line; therefore I think we should avoid implying it in our cover picture.

I think the poster advertising Loose Change which Ally from Leeds produced might be suitable. I have a copy of it in jpeg format but don't know how to post it to this forum.

Help please

Noel

[Jim]

Noel -

Send me a copy and I'll pop it up somewhere.

[brian]

To my mind going along with or tacitly supporting those that take the LIHOP line is in effect contributing to the problem rather than addressing it. It does nothing to expose the main lie - ie muslim extremists were responsible. The LIHOP line leads to the thinking that those responsible would no longer have influence once the Bush administration is no more. Clearly this is not the case.

I understand the importance of getting such as politicians to speak out but there is no need for those willing to state any view, only that the evidence destroys the official story and an independent inquiry is necessary. It would be ideal if they could say something like reading Griffins New Pearl Harbour led them to this conclusion as I believe his book is about as good an introduction to the subject there presently is. Those that such politicians affect by this may then look at the evidence and judge for themselves.

[ian neal]

I think the LIHOP / MIHOP is a bit of a red herring in that I'm not aware of many if any LIHOP believers on the email list and on this forum. It's just to say that LIHOP people (if they exist) are welcome, just don't be surprised if you are a minority.

We are certainly not presenting a 9/11 'lite' version of 9/11 truth excluding certain bits of evidence

What would be helpful is just to put the text Free DVD: Confronting evidence available under the picture. It is the free DVD after all that is the reason that this link to Jimmy's site is there in the first place.

Thanks