Why it matters that there were no planes

[Patrick Brown]

Judging from Mr Gobell's activity over the last week he must be a friend of Mr Johnson.

Mr Men = Childrens Stories

[telecasterisation]

As I sit here waiting for Lost - Season 3 Episode 7 to complete downloading, very simple answer;

Nothing I have seen or read or postulated, has changed my initial view that real physical aircraft were involved in the WTC aspect of 9/11.

[marky 54]

[Mark Gobell]

[Mark Gobell]

[Patrick Brown]

[flamesong]

[Mark Gobell]

[ian neal]

I received it as well and I have read it and I disagree with it on several important points of strategy

For the sake of argument let's assume that the truth is that no planes hit the towers, the pentagon or Shanksville. Even working to this assumption would change nothing of what I write below

NPT advocates have yet to PROVE the NPT or explain away the evidence that challenges this theory. Certainly not in a way that convinces a majority within the 9/11 truth movement, let alone the wider world.

Until this is achieved, there is no way that NPT can become the lynchpin of any 9/11 truth argument that the movement will unite around since to do so will undoubtedly cause division within the movement (as we are already witnessing).

The onus is still on the NPT advocates to make their case more professionally in such a way as to convince more people within the movement that this is the way to go.

The tactic of some NPT advocates of dismissing everyone who disagrees with NPTs as plane hugging, truthling shills will not achieve this. Stronger, better researched, more professional presentations of hard evidence will

Further more, Gerard's article makes several assumptions that I don't buy

Firstly, like Gerad, I have heard the argument from a few anti-war voices (often in leadership positions) that the 9/11 truth movement is irrelevent and a distraction from the bigger picture (Chomsky, Schnews, Stop the War leadership, Notes from the Borderland, etc). Obviously I think such opinions are bs. But more importantly I think most other people see this as bs.

I have discussed 9/11 with many many people who whilst still believing the OCT recognise that if 9/11 were shown to be an inside job, that this fact would not be irrelevent. They can see that it would be highly significant. They can see it would change everything. It would not just be Blair and Bush with awkward questions to answer but also other political parties, the security services, the mainstream media, governments around the world and the leadership of movements like Stop the War.

It is precisely because most people can see the world transforming implications of 9/11 being an inside job that the proposition is resisted so strongly especially by those in positions of power and influence. So IMO we don't need NPTs to make the case that 9/11 truth changes everything

Secondly Gerard talks of the corpoarte media as if it is a single entity. It is not. There are many honest (if slightly intimidated and closed minded) journalists out there. He talks as if the only way to expose the media's complicity in covering up 9/11 is by showing that they were involved in TV fakery. True, proof of TV fakery would indeed show their complicity, but their wider distorted and inaccurate coverage of 9/11 and the 9/11 truth movement also shows this.

Their coverage of the war on terror shows this. Their hatchet jobs and sneering against the movement shows this. Their failure to air the most credible dissenting voices or to screen Press for Truth or Loose Change: All this shows the owners and editors of the corporate media are every bit as bit as complicit as Bush and Blair. The media's role in keeping people ignorant will be recognised and this will be seen to be the case as the truth movement grows.

But how do we get to that position.

Sure the mainstream media is biased and tightly controlled, but it is not beyond our reach. If we packed Wembley Stadium or Trafalgar Square or brought the country to a stand still with drive slows across this country's motorways, the media would be unable to continue to ignore us, no matter how much they would like to.

Most people 'know' what they think they know about 9/11 from the TV. It stands to reason therefore that, where there is the opportunity, we should use the media to get our message out there. We need to recognise that we are more likely to get sympathetic coverage if we base our arguments on the strongest evidence. There is a virtuous circle that we are already seeing where the more media coverage the 9/11 truth movement receives, the more people check out the evidence themselves and join the movement which in turn leads to more media coverage. And the larger we get the harder it is to dismiss us as a cult or deranged. The NPT and other controversial theories stand directly in the way of more sympathetic coverage.

Now to my mind those in the media bent on debunking or discrediting the 9/11 truth movement would like nothing more than to conduct the whole debate on the NPTs and similar controversial ground. Why do we think that in the many debunking articles that have been written recently there is so little talk of the Meacher/Jersey widows ground of intelligence and air defense failures, ISI and Saudi connections, etc? Because they know this is the ground the commission focussed on and they know that is where they are most vulnerable to attack.

To stand on this ground, on the ground that is often dismissed by some NPT advocates as 9/11 truthling, 9/11 lite, limted hang-out bs, does not mean that this is the whole story, but it is common sense to stand on the evidence that is most widely accepted by campaigners and that unites the movement. If there is a wider truth involving these controversial theories, this will come out in due course.

The ONLY way this movement will succeed is if it gains vast popular support to the extent that it is unstoppable and the only way we will do this is to build a credible coherent and professional presentation of the evidence and message for the media.

There is no way to censor or make NPTs/TV fakery theories disappear from the 9/11 radar, but IMO people hearing about the 9/11 truth movement for the first time are far more likely to give us a considered and open minded hearing is the NPTs are not mentioned.

My experience is that the vast majority of people who have seen the main 9/11 DVDs accept there is something extremely suspicious about 9/11 that demands reinvestigation. Armed with that most will then start to do further research, when they will then come across the debate around NPTs for themselves in due course.

Only those who are particularly stubborn, short-sighted or dishonest would insist that the movement as a whole has to make a choice between accepting NPTs or not and place NPTs at the heart of its messages.

If NPTs are true, this truth will come out once the dominoes start to fall

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Mark your critique here is excellent --- you would make it as a top lawyer

[marky 54]

[Mark Gobell]

[Ignatz]

[Mark Gobell]

[marky 54]

[Mark Gobell]

I was suggesting that both sides abandon TV, Video & Photographs for the sake of moving the debate forward, to make some progress.

That way, both sides are standing on a little island, together, where no TV, videos or photographs matter anymore.

This means that you will not have to prove your TV, video and photographs are real and the other side's are fake and the other side will not have to prove that theirs are real and yours are fake.

The reason I think this could be fruitful is that neither side can presently prove that their TV, videos and photographs are real or fake and by agreeing that they are therefore worthless as evidence, on both sides, the debate can then move on to other items of evidence.

[marky 54]

so somebody could fake a video and use it as evidence and nobody can question if its a fake? it would only work if research isnt done on videos ect. which is why im looking for evidence that isnt video fullstop, i started a thread asking questions but nothing so far. it comes to something when somebody who dosnt believe npt has to start a thread to try and prove it.

[scar]

....

[Mark Gobell]

[marky 54]

[Mark Gobell]

Thanks Mark.

Everyone knows that both sides have their own favourite clips and photos.

Am I right in thinking that you at least are agreeing that no side's clips and photos can absolutely be proved to be genuine ?

If I've got that wrong then please tell me and we'll have to revisit it again or as this issue has proved, either keep arguing about the veracity of boths sides clips and photos or agree to disagree and drop the entire subject without further examination of any other "evidence".

[Mark Gobell]

It's amazing how everyone has just dropped this thread and stopped posting isn't it ?

TTWSU3 - do you agree that your clips and photos can be abandoned on the same basis so that we can move on ?

[marky 54]

the only other way i can think to get my point across is this:

s.jones did not just look at a video of what he thought was a thermate reaction and post it as fact with no other evidence. he did research and tested all the possiblities he could think before coming to that conclusion he ended proving or providing a paper to back up the video.

if he was a npt'er he would of just spammed forums with the one video stating 100% proof of thermate job done!

[Samantha J Fox]

[Mark Gobell]

Mark I'm assuming that is true too. But we can only get there, calmly and dispassionately by ditching the shifting sands of subjective videos and pictures, all or none of which could be real or fake.

Samantha.

I've already said I am not advocating one theory over another because I have no proof of one theory over another.

If we are agreed on abandoning the video and photographic evidence can we do just that and not mention it anymore ?

Im suggesting the next stage is to draw up a list of say 10 points of each side's strongest evidence.

Just one liners, for example: fingerpints or the candle holder with blood on it

As long as we avoid video and photographs we can discuss the other stuff.

Any thoughts ?

[marky 54]

[Mark Gobell]

Great stuff - we're off.

I only suggested a top 10 - compile as many as you see fit.

Remember- no videos, photographs or TV.

It would be helpful I think if each point was succinct, not a long paragraph.

Good luck.

Now - who is going to take up the challenge for the other side ?

NPT advocates post here

Non NPT advocates post here

You don't have to subscribe to either group to post but you should stay on topic.

Please do not post any TV, VIDEO, or PHOTOGRAPHIC "evidence" on either thread, as it will not be used in either side's debate.

[marky 54]

i started it this morning so it isnt a top 10 list. im just hoping people post there best evidence in there.

but i will take part in anything else being done that promotes better debate between npt'ers and plane huggers that just gives points and facts
and is tackled correctly. its time to prove them imo ive heard it stated there is 100% proof lots of times yet fail to see any.

so the clips and a few words and failure to answer questions needs to stop and it needs to be turned into a evidence based thread, like they use to be.

they have at this time turned into one clips lots of disagrement followed by insults.

[Mark Gobell]

OK good stuff and point taken.

I agree with your approach.

It's a shame that some of the most vocal advocates on both sides have gone quiet.

If few take part in this then that will be revealing in itself.

Maybe they've all gone shy or are just hedging their bets so they can criticise later on.

We'll have to give it time I guess.

Mark - could you compile the list when you're satisfied that you have your main points discussed and agreed ?

[Fallious]