Not for Joe Public

[HERA]

Can we all agree that the planes/no planes argument is, definitely, not for the uniniated and is, and will be for the forseeable future, counterproductive when we are trying to introduce the Sep 11 reality to newcomers?

This forum could and should still debate the subject , using reasoned arguments rather than some of the stuff which has been posted.

[Stefan]

Whole heartedly, yes.

[tfayaz]

Forget reasoned arguments, my advice is just to stop discussing it altogether as it does nothing for our credibility.

The majority of the people on this website will not go out into the public and give out leaflets, flyers, make their voices heard at rally's etc and those are the people who also make it difficult for us to go out and do our "thing" in a productive way because we're already labeled 'no plane' theorists.

Let's just end all the talk of it altogether because there doesn't seem to be a reasonable argument for or against it without one person or the other losing their rag and insulting the other.

[physicist]

[tfayaz]

[Stefan]

The point is that "No Planes" is the kind of line a denier just has to drop into a conversation to paint anyone who questions the official story as a whacko.

"Yes you realise these people think NO PLANES hit the WTC? Yes apparently they don't have TVs but they KNOW THE TRUTH! Yuk Yuk Yuk"

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying there isn't some kind of a case there (I am more interested in the images of the nose going undamaged out of the other side of one of the towers than possible compressed video anomolies- steel and concrete should trump aluminium surely?), it's that it is a case which takes a lot of explaining, careful watching of videos and a very open mind before considering.

If you are trying to open someones eyes and spark them into starting their own investigation (which is always my aim- no one likes to be lectured to, get people to look into it themselves and I'd 99 out of a hundred people will come down- the other 1% would be mentally ill) sticking to the simplest, most irrefutable facts is the key.

Let's just take things one step at a time- start off with things they can't laught at- molten steel, near free fall drops, pulverised concrete, pre-collpase explosions, horizontally ejected material and most of all BUILDING 7 ("Let's start with the THIRD building that collapsed on 9/11" "The Pentagon?" "No the third building in New York" "WHAT third building??" *bingo!*), once there is a genaral agreement over the irrefutable facts the more complicated sides of this can be brought into the open.

Try to walk before you can crawl and you'll get a bruised arse.

[physicist]

[xmasdale]

The problem with this forum, and with the 9/11 truth movement in general, is that it attracts two kinds of people: researchers and campaigners. The researchers love to debate the issue of what really happened on 9/11 and how. The campaigners want to present credible arguments to the public in order to build up the campaign. These are incompatible objectives, which is why I believe that the link between this website and the British 9/11 Truth Campaign should be broken. If this link is not broken, our enemies will continue to seek out the least credible statements written on this forum and hold them up as typical beliefs of the Movement.

There are always controvertial areas within our discussions. When I first joined this movement, the controvertial issue was controlled explosions. I was told by some I should not mention such whacky ideas because no one would ever believe them. Next came the pod and flash theory and now it is the no plane theory.

In the first two cases a consensus eventually emerged, in the case of the pod theory that it was so controvertial that it was best not to mention it; in the case of controlled demolition theory that the evidence was so compelling that we could not afford not to mention it.

In the case of NPT no consensus has yet emerged but, as a campaigner, I do not think we should be discussing these issues in front of the public, who will use such discussion to discredit us. I suspect that researchers will disagree with me.

Noel

[Briaman]

[Worried]

as someone new to the site I'd say that the above posting demonstrate a reassuring realism -

may I just add that there are many 'truths', yet what we should be concentrating on is evident and prosecutable truth -

let later investigations detail exactly 'what' plane was used in 'what' part of the attacks, or the Games which covered the attacks.

Most people who are interested in the truth of 911 are seeking justice for the murdered (and the soon to be murdered), and the dismissal of the causal agent for the war on terror.

Does there comes a time when those who repeatedly call for the continuance of internecine 'debate/arguments' are seen as counter-productive?

peace