Were explosives in the twin towers for years?

[kbo234]

[Mark Gobell]

Hello everyone

These are fascinating times indeed.

Having read these recent exchanges the strongest, among many impressions I have is this:

There is obviously a concerted effort being made here to debunk, dismiss and belittle some of the ideas that many people express about the events of 9/11.

That, I would suggest is a clear fact, and one that should be welcomed if one is truly interested in a rationale and constructive debate.

Now, if I chose to make such an effort I would need to be motivated to do so.

So what would motivate somebody to contradict and disparage those who were using thier time and effort in trying to understand the many anomalies in the "official story" of the events of 9/11 ?

Among the many possibilities could be they reason that those who were discussing the subject would benefit from whatever knowledge they could impart, so that it would inform their thinking and contribute to their understanding of the subject.

I could imagine doing this if, for example, I witnessed an event first hand and felt sufficiently confident of what I witnessed to post some information that would correct something that I knew to be false, thereby shedding some light on the discussion and helping the forum to move forward.

I could also imagine some people applying time and effort to achieve any other goal that they may have, regardless of whether this would contribute in a positive way or in a negative way.

In doing so, I may be motivated to reveal what my goals are.

Alternatively, I may not wish my goals to be revealed at all.

Either way, I would suggest that the posts should be welcomed and answered calmly and logically, for I suspect they are not being made for our benefit at all, rather for consumption by the wider, less polarised audience.

This, if correct, is a reason to rejoice is it not, for it demonstrates that those who may have less obvious goals are at least motivated to join our debate, albeit with motivations that are unknown and even unprovable.

Regardless, see it for what it is, stay calm and respectful and remember that the wider audience is our goal, as it probably is for others . . .

[blackcat]

If the world was a fairer place you would have a point but the world is not fair. The mainstream media is so heavily biased that even five years after the mass murder of thousands in New York most people seem unaware of the multitude of inaccuracies and anomalies concerning the official account of 9/11. Something stinks!!! The mainstream press does not countenance opposing views and ridicules and attacks those who dare to question 9/11, even demanding people lose their livelihood if they do step out of line. Faced with that kind of odium this site and those like it cannot possibly afford to let obvious time wasters prevent the message getting out that 9/11 was NOT perpetrated by 19 Arabs but was in fact something much more insidious. How much time before the next false flag? How many more will be killed in an Iran war if it is believed Iranians were behind the next "terror" attack? The message needs to be spread so that when it happens the majority do not blindly, with misguided patriotism, send us to an even greater catastrophe than the Iraq war. It is ridiculous to say that the people who have just arrived this last week are interested in debate. They know the truth and seek to suppress it.

[Mark Gobell]

Blackcat I agree with your sentiments entirely and I think the frustration that people feel with those who appear to detract from the process is entirely understandable.

However, my aim was to focus on our goals as well as illuminating the possible goals and motivations that others may have, in the hope that the reader will see for themselves the nature of the arguments.

This is a public forum and as one of our goals is to encourage the widest audience possible, I would suggest that we have to answer each criticism as plainly and as honestly as we possibly can.

As we all know, we are self evidently at a distinct disadvantage.

In the eyes of the media and general public we remain "conspiracy theorists" when, as we know, the biggest "conspiracy theory" is the official account of 9/11 as provided by the 9/11 Commission Report.

We must remain passionate about our subject and yet dispassionate when responding to those who may have their own agenda.

To do otherwise, in my view, leads us neatly into their trap because we then start to operate on their level, and that behaviour further diminishes our efforts in the eyes of the undecided public at large, which as I tried to imply may be one of their goals, if not their entire aim.

What we should be aiming for is to scatter our seeds as far and wide as possible, whilst retaining and being seen to retain, integrity, honesty and fairness.

As for wanting to avoid the next 9/11 type event, I have to say that I think that is an unrealistic, unachievable goal. We have already had our own 9/11 on 7/7. Spain had Madrid. Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon are the outcomes, and we can only speculate about what will happens next.

What we should focus on is a presentation of as many facts and as much evidence as possible so that the current collective "understanding" of world events can be challenged. This in itself will contribute to a change in the way some people may percieve the world around them.

Our "enemies" are numerous, well organised and well funded. They have most unthinking folk in their thrall and they know this. So why should they pay us any attention ? Think about that and then try to see that fact in the context of your acheivements in bringing the subject to life.

I for one appreciate greatly the work of the contributors to this forum and the UK 9/11 site as I am sure many others do.

We know their tactics well. Our purpose is to expose those tactics and the motivation behind them, with solid reasoned arguments, not I would argue to use similar tactics as they would wish us to.

Finally, I did not say that "they are intersted in debate" and neither did I say they were not interested in debate. That is my tactic. If I choose to sling mud then I cannot complain when mud is thrown at me. Let the reader see for themselves, it is a much more permanent way of learning.

[Jay Ref]

[Mark Gobell]

Jay Ref

Thanks for your reply.

I have opened up a new topic in Critics Corner to debate your ideas about 9/11.

Look forward to your thoughts.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2838

[Newspeak International]

[Justin]

Are you going on this Jay Ref:

[Pete J]

Gravy