David Ray Griffin nominated for 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

TorsteinViddal · Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:36 pm Post subject:

Mr Johnson and his sidekick Pikey aren't fooling anyone.

outsider · Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:58 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:01 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:08 pm Post subject:

Pikey · Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:57 pm Post subject:

ian neal · Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:56 pm Post subject:

I wanted to clarify a few things

I disagree with Jarvie because throughout the article he puts 2 and 2 together and gets 10. To give just one example, he claims that because DRG appeared on an ‘EU parliament’ conference panel, this makes him a New World Order minion. Yet this totally misrepresents and overplays this ‘conference’. The ‘conference’ wasn’t held BY the EU parliament but was a meeting held in the EU parliament building, convened by one MEP at the behest of UK 9/11 activists in order to give other MEPs the opportunity to watch the film zero and hear the case for a reinvestigation.

It was a small event attended mostly by activists and hardly any MEPs. It wasn’t called for BY the EU parliament and received no official sanction. As if? Jarvie then goes on to make similarly bold claims based on very little substance, such as the claim ‘other UN officials’ have come forward calling for a “new investigation” and that this is evidence that clearly the globalists have a stake in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Really? Which UN officials ones? He doesn’t specify. How do you qualify to be referred to as a globalist or ‘UN official’? When has any UN or EU body ever supported a new investigation?

Apparently according to Jarvie those behind the 9/11 attacks have no problem with the truth according to DRG coming out. Really? Not that DRG promotes one version of the truth, but leaving that aside, is Jarvie really saying those behind 9/11 would be happy with (indeed are actively working towards) a new investigation that would conclude

• 9/11 was an inside job,
• that the Bush Whitehouse and military colluded in the controlled demolition of the towers,
• that intelligence and air defence were deliberately stood down or sabotaged and
• the truth systematically cover-up both by politicians and the media around the world?

That such a ‘limited hangout’ would apparently put the sheep back in the pen and indeed have world public opinion clamouring for a ‘new world order’ to be enacted, just so long as the ‘truth movement’ doesn’t uncover the bigger NWO picture. Apparently we are all such a bunch of unthinking muppets, slavishly following our ‘9/11 truth leaders’, that we are all unaware of this bigger picture. What patronising drivel.
Many other activists have made the same basic argument that Jarvie’s makes although specifying what specifically would covered up by such a limited hang out. These include:

• The connections between leading US Zionists and Israel and 9/11;
• TV fakery and by extension, evidence claiming no planes/no hijackers were involved;
• The evidence Judy Wood’s highlights which in part is to prevent exposure of covert energy technologies and weapons;
• The ‘bigger picture’.

Now I ask does Jarvie and others supporting this argument really believe that the ‘globalists’ control both the 911 truth movement and wider society to such an extent that they could seriously expect the questions to stop at this ‘limited hangout’?

Do they believe it is more or less likely that the general public will be open to examining these wider claims of TV fakery and the use of advanced hidden technologies or the bigger picture (banking, media, etc) having first been exposed to the DRG, supposedly ‘authorised’ version of the truth?

Are the perpetrators merely going to roll over, give us our ‘new investigation’ and stop ridiculing the likes of DRG and these other supposed NWO stooges just like that?

Now I would strongly argue that the ‘globalists’ are going to do no such thing. They will need to be forced into this position by massive public support for ‘911 truth’.

On his site, Jarvie acknowledges (http://sovereignsentience.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html)

“I am often criticised for being "too pessimistic" and never presenting any "solutions." Everybody wants solutions, but nobody wants to think of their own solutions based on what they know. I make it no secret that I don't have all the answers. What I do tell people is that they need to work to inform themselves and others, because any talk of solutions is irrelevant until enough people have truly woken up and really understand the power structure. Only once people are informed enough to be able to lead themselves instead of following the man with the bullhorn can we talk about solutions.”

Now there is a lot of truth in this. It is not enough for people to realise that 9/11 is a lie, they must also realise the bigger NWO picture. In Jarvie’s words to “truly [wake] up and really understand the power structure”. But how are the ‘sheeple’ ever going to wake up to this larger reality, if they can’t even accept that 9/11 is a lie, despite copious evidence that proves it is a lie.

9/11 truth remains our greatest opportunity to break the spell and open up the opportunity for wider ‘awakening’. But the only way I see of achieving this is to use the system to undermine it from within. You have to start where most people are and take them on a journey one step at a time. Now if your goal, your first step on this journey, is to take people from believing the 9/11 lie to believing 9/11 is a lie, you start with the 9/11 lie, the official account and you dismantle it. And you use this to mobilise support for a new investigation. Not because you believe the new investigation will necessarily disclose the whole truth or that you believe that the ‘globalists’ won’t seek to control and spin it. But because you know that a reinvestigation can be a rallying cry around which everyone who believes that 9/11 is a lie can rally around without the need to splinter into different factions according to which particular alternative theory you believe to be the real truth and because it is a ‘reasonable demand’ that will attract wider support even from those who disagree with you.

We all need to remember that we are many and they are few. IF (and it is a huge IF) ‘we’ were united we would have a far better chance of preventing them controlling and spinning a new investigation.
This is basically DRG’s strategy, my strategy and the strategy of many others. It may be a good strategy or a bad strategy. Not everyone need support it. But what it is not is evidence that everyone who follows this route is a NWO minion, a corporate media whore or a COINTELPRO agent. It is not even as if everyone following this strategy is working together. We are not.

Now anyone who follows this strategy needs to tread carefully. We know our critics will cherry pick the weakest points in our argument. We know if what we say appears to be too outlandish then we will lose the confidence of the very people we seek to influence, namely those who currently believe the 9/11 lie but who are sufficiently open minded to consider the counter arguments. This is why I fully understand why DRG chooses to ignore Judy Wood’s evidence, theories and public presentations and that anyone expecting him to do differently is being naive.

However I want to make an important distinction here between public campaigning and the path Andrew Johnson and Judy Wood have chosen to follow, namely the legal route. I believe (as I have said before) that Judy Wood has unearthed some amazing evidence that I am certainly at a loss to explain: The buckled beams, the flipped and toasted cars, the video footage of the disintegrating spire, the incredible heat in the footprints of the towers, the nature of the dust and personally I have no problem in referring to this evidence and saying it is unexplained and requires the authorities to come forward with an explanation: i.e. a reinvestigation. From a campaigning point of view, I will not indulge in hypothesising as to possible explanations or use Judy Wood’s public presentations, since in my opinion this would be counterproductive.

At one stage, I was under the impression that Andrew was advocating that I and others used the ‘Judy Wood’s evidence’ for campaigning. I have tried to explain why I think that is not appropriate at least during any introduction to the subject. As Andrew has explained his strategy is the legal route and not a campaigning one. I sincerely hope his strategy succeeds, though I’m sceptical that it will.

Basically my main point is ‘different strokes for different folks’. Depending on your strategy and audience, you will use different approaches and evidence. The last thing we need is to all follow the same route. Indeed our strength is in different approaches, since none of us can know which one will succeed or indeed as I argued before what opportunities may open as a result say of a new investigation. I have no argument with Andrew. I know him to be honest and honourable and I hope Andrew you have no argument with me.

Finally as a side issue, I did read what you wrote in relation to Fred Burks. It is noted. I say I don’t know what happened because I refuse to take one person’s word (i.e. yours) for what happened as the final word and I have no interest in contacting Fred or any of the other players to get their side of the story. It is not that I’m ignoring the evidence. I just chose not to dig into every last minutae.

Best wishes

Ian

Marigold · Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:41 pm Post subject:

If people in the 9/11 Truth movement (of which some members of this forum are a part) refuse or just cannot open their minds to alternative forms of evidence (i.e the work of Prof Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, Andrew Johnson, Michael Zebuhr-who don't forget was murdered in cold blood in 2007- http://michaelzebuhr.blogspot.com ) it says that they are as fearful of the truth as those who vehemently deny 9/11 was an inside job. Using the excuse that it will fragment 9/11 Truth and/or damage any case for a thorough re-investigation is poppycock as any new investigation providing evidence of explosives used to demolish the WTC is always likely to be challenged-directly or indirectly,as the truth in time always surfaces-e.g by other contributory factors such as intense pulverisation, toasted cars, the 'verticality' of the holes seen directly above Ground Zero, and countless other anomolies already explained at her website.
If any of you have really checked the evidence and thoroughly examined Prof. Wood's work with the open mind that it deserves you will give it serious consideration. I feel that failure to do this will not provide enough answers to the many questions that are being asked and for those that may be asked in the future. It is imperative that 9/11 Truth as a truth and justice-seeking movement does not get disillusioned by the restriction of possibilities. Also, if the existence of the use of DEW or other exotic technology( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#Directed-ene rgy_weapon_.28DEW.29_programs ) is being denied then we are playing into the hands of those that want to protect their use for whatever reason.
I am constantly surprised by those who appear to have an air of intelligence and genuinity by how far they are prepared to go to condemn good science. By good science I am referring to the accommodation of all scientific possibilities including hypothesis. Do you think that a criminal elite (and military industrial complex) wouldn't jump at the chance to test their hidden modern technology, as we all know now they are capable of anything!
What does not surprise me though is those that allow themselves to be sub-consciously rounded-up like sheep and are not individualistic enough to follow up their own research or come to their own conclusions for fear of being castigated. Evil or Very Mad

outsider · Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:55 pm Post subject:

Watch the 'Hutchison Effect' on video; anyone out there explain just what is 'scientific' about it? Anyone want to buy my anti-swine flu snake oil?
Cheap at half the price!! Laughing

ian neal · Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:55 pm Post subject:

I don't know if you are directing any of these remarks at me Marigold? If so, you have misunderstood what I have said and made several false assumptions.

Which anomolies do you believe are explained on her website?

Marigold · Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:23 pm Post subject:

No, Ian I'm not directing my comments at you in particular, but for those that scoff and deride what could in fact turn-out to be correct (I believe Prof Wood's evidence to be the best I have yet seen to describe the anomolies) then they are not to be taken seriously themselves.

In answer to your question regarding the anomolies:- http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ1.html#intro

Hilz

Stephen · Moderate Poster Joined: 03 Jul 2006 Posts: 819

Wrong quote!

GSTT, Why have you got in for Shayler, all right, I dont agree with everything hes saying now either, but whats the problem, he's got his freedom of speech, and he did help us in having our biggerest night in Liverpool since records began.

Stephen · Moderate Poster Joined: 03 Jul 2006 Posts: 819

Ian, I dissagree. Griffin was talking about having a global government and thats NWO!

Stephen · Moderate Poster Joined: 03 Jul 2006 Posts: 819

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:01 pm Post subject:

Pikey · Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:31 pm Post subject:

I find Ian's response to Andrews questions evasive and disappointing.

BTW can anyone come up with the facts rearding this key question posed earlier:-

GodSaveTheTeam · Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:52 pm Post subject:

TonyGosling · Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:07 pm Post subject:

I'm afraid the truth is that he takes himself far too seriously.

Maybe he should take some more of this Ayahuasca stuff as a reverse lobotomy?
Or would that make things worse?

Where does one find an Ayahuasca expert?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayahuasca#.22Ayahuasca_tourism.22

outsider · Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:10 pm Post subject:

TorsteinViddal · Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:23 pm Post subject:

Hey, Pikey, there's no contradiction between being polite and disagreeing over some matter. At least not where I come from. I just don't like being lied to or exposed to the kind of BS disinfo that some of you spew. Frankly, I'm somewhat puzzled that you are allowed to carry that stuff around in these forums, as I honestly believe that it belongs in some Controversies subforum.

Increase the signal-to-noise ratio, moderators, and do us all a favour!

PS: Just watched Ludicrous Diversion and Mind the Gap again, as I have a political refugee here from London who just returned after nine years. She never saw them before... And I ordered Terror on the Tube from Amazon.

Pikey · Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:18 pm Post subject:

Bump:-

TorsteinViddal · Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject:

outsider · Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:16 pm Post subject:

outsider · Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:19 pm Post subject:

@ pikey:
I can think of nothing more controversial than those who choose to ignore the evidence and top quality research.

Are you including in the 'top quality research' the 'Hutchison Effect' video? Laughing

TorsteinViddal · Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:18 am Post subject:

I get shocked when I see new truthers being shocked. It's shocking. Easy to forget how shocking it really is.

Marigold · Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:13 am Post subject:

Torstein, I've been to Oslo and stayed at the Union Jack club for a night and then spent six lovely weeks Langlauf skiing in Austlid(nr Lillehammer). It's a pity though because all my fond memories of the beautiful place and nice people has today been slightly nullified by your closed-minded attitude to scientific possibilities. As I mentioned in my last post about the Hutshison/DEW sceptics:-

Stephen · Moderate Poster Joined: 03 Jul 2006 Posts: 819

Stephen · Moderate Poster Joined: 03 Jul 2006 Posts: 819

Stephen · Moderate Poster Joined: 03 Jul 2006 Posts: 819

ian neal · Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:50 am Post subject:

ian neal · Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:54 am Post subject:

	9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Covid Plandemic, 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3