[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the Room video ....

Wed Mar 26 16:19:34 UTC 2014

 "We just have to look at the evidence if we don't want to be gullible."

Indeed Ricky,

And the most importent element of any evidence is the source of the 
information.

I  believe the evidence of HUNDREDS of eye-witesses who were at the World 
Trade Center on  9/11/2001, Firefighters, WTC employees, construction 
workers, who have stated their experiences which contradicts the
" official " Bush administration fairy tale propoganda that the corporate 
media repeated without question. Just like they did in the lead up to the 
invasion of Iraq.

I also give a lot of credibility to the family members of the 9/11 victims 
who the vast majority have stated that the 9/11 commision was a complete 
cover-up.

In conjunction to this, there is also a lot of credible physical evidence 
and other interesting facts that should not be dismissed so easily.
Then of course there is method, oppurtunity and motive, which is always used 
in any homicide investigation.
Who benefited the most from the 9/11 attack ?... it certainly wasn't Al 
Qaeda.
And who had the means and ability to make this happen ?...
It definetly wasn't some asshole in a cave in Afganistan with a laptop and a 
cellphone directing 9 men with box cutters who happend to not just hijack 
one plane and crash it into a building, but THREE planes ( not counting the 
fourth that was shot down in Pennsylvania ) all within the most protected 
airspace in the world  ?

Give me a break !

David Johnson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ricky Baldwin" <rbaldwin at seiu73.org>
To: "Stephen Francis" <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>; 
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "occupycu" <occupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the Room video ....

> I'm afraid the elephant in the room has a dfferent name.  It appears to me 
> that much of the doubt directed at the "official version" of what happened 
> to the Twin Towers and AA77 has a source other than sound reason.
>
>
>
> The circumstantial evidence for this (the doubters who also doubt the 
> Kennedy assassination, the moon walk, the Sandy Hook shootings, the 
> accident that killed Paul Wellstone and other highly dubious doubts, so to 
> speak) is not all, of course.  The view of the world that says every 
> detail must be accounted for fully and satisafctorily by a mundane model, 
> or we must cast the mundane model aside in favor of the fantastic, is 
> troublesome in itself.  And the reasning that, just because the Government 
> lied about some things, they must have lied about everything, is flawed.
>
>
>
> George Bush & Co. told the world that Saddam Hussein maintained "weapons 
> of mass destruction" in 2003.  But once the US invasion and occupation 
> confirmed that this was untrue, the Government admitted that the expected 
> weapons were not there.  Couldn't they have issued a false report, or 
> planted some gas, or at least found a way to remove the UN stickers from 
> the old weapons already catalogued and out of commission?  If this were 
> too difficult for them to pull off, do we seriously believe that the 
> events of Sept. 11, 2001, were easier to fake?
>
>
>
> Not that telling the truth on one item means they will tell the truth on 
> another, either, by any means.  We know that footage of crowds pulling 
> down a statue in Iraq was staged (we have the wider frame shots, the 
> testimony of folks who were there as the shots were set up, etc).  We also 
> know that some of the putative justification for the US attack on Iraq in 
> the 1990's was faked: the testimony of the young girl who supposedly saw 
> Iraqi troops removing Kuwaiti babies from incubators (she was never there, 
> a PR firm paid her, etc.).  But we have nothing even remotely approaching 
> evidence that 9-11 was a hoax, an inside job, or anything other that what 
> it appeared to be: a terrorist attack (with the caveat that the terrorists 
> seem to have been connected to elements originally trained by US agents in 
> Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation).
>
>
>
> The vast majority of argumentation for 9-11 doubt takes the form "Why 
> would x happen?"  This is not evidence.  Ask almost anybody to explain, 
> for example, the weird effects of a tornado or hurricane, and they likely 
> cannot.  This is not evidence of funny business.
>
>
>
> A minority of the argumentation consists of activities such as men in 
> overalls coming into the building over the weekend prior to Sept .11, 
> 2011, which we are supposed to find suspicious.  However, the individuals 
> who say they witnessed these activities say they saw nothing unusual in it 
> at the time.  It is only after the fact that significance seems to adhere 
> to them, like a funny feeling someone may remember having somewhere around 
> the time some terrible event is believed to have happened.  But there is 
> no reason to believe this is not simply confirmational bias (e.g. a song 
> on the radio that suits a mood or circumstance is noticed, while other 
> songs before and after are ignored because they do not seem to fit).
>
>
>
> Who knows?  The World Trade Center may have been destroyed by Bush agents, 
> Israeli agents, extraterrestrials, a "directed energy beam," a "mini black 
> hole," or who knows what.  I can see that such theories are *more 
> interesting* that the apparent answer and subsequent opportunism by Bush 
> et al.  What I cannot see, no matter how many of these videos I watch, is 
> *why any of those explanations is better (or even equally) supported by 
> the evidence* compared to the apparent answer.
>
>
>
> Another common mistake, which may be related to this one, is to dismiss 
> all horror stories, such as the very real evils of the old School of the 
> Americas, extraordinary rendition, and so on, as fantastical "conspiracy 
> theories" of the Roswell type.  We just have to look at the evidence if we 
> don't want to be gullible.
>
>
>
> Ricky
> ________________________________
> From: OccupyCU [occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Stephen 
> Francis [stephenf1113 at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 1:03 PM
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; occupycu
> Subject: [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the Room video ....
>
>
> YouTube video<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJoejNkTp4U>, 
> 9/11/Truth<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJoejNkTp4U>
>
> [X]
>
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
> 