Tuesday, December 16, 2008

A Response to John Albanese

Promoted from the comments:

This question is loaded with assumptions designed to lead the jury. For example: “When did you stop beating your wife?”

Here are the ‘gotcha’ parts of your question – that make it dishonest:

1 – “…destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies.”

Not all 9/11 Truth activists have embraced the ‘controlled demolition’ theory. And, among those that do, it is not necessarily clear that a ‘US government agency’ is responsible. Some do. Some are not sure. And some believe completely different things. But that’s the point of a legal system – right? It does not matter what people believe. In the USA, when people are killed, mass murdered, we generally seat a grand jury and investigate. After 9/11 we didn’t. No subpoenas. No testifying under oath. No prosecutorial emphasis or requisite parameters for the ‘burden of proof’ was defined or pursued.

To date, 549 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition to Congress, claiming that the collapse 3 building on 9/11 are scientifically problematic – and are not adequately explained by the National Institute of Science and Technology. Many of these signatories possess advanced degrees, and are licensed professionals in their field. Simply using silly words like ‘Troofers” does not make these questions go away – and fails to diminish the professional opinions of these degreed experts.

Do YOU have a Master’s degree in engineering? Have you designed buildings for 20 years? Many of these signatories do. Shouldn’t THEY be asking the questions – not you?


John, don't start playing the credentials game unless you really want to compare, say, Dr Shyam Sunder's resume with that of Richard "I designed a steel-framed gymnasium" Gage. The real experts are on our side; your side has swimming pool engineers and water engineers and HVAC engineers.

2 - why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted?

Again – why are you speaking for 9/11 Truth activists? While some activists may believe the terrorist attacks were ‘faked’ – many do not. Many believe that 9/11 represented criminal negligence on the part of the US government. Others believe that the government was aware the attacks would take place, and allowed them to go forward unchallenged. Others still believe that the war games that morning were designed to confuse air control protocols, and provide a window of opportunity for very real terrorists to strike amidst the confusion.


This question is aimed at the activists who believe the terrorist attacks were faked. As James pointed out, the notion that your movement encompasses everything but stands behind nothing is not a strength, it's a remarkable weakness. It betrays a lack of seriousness.

But – opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone’s got one. I keep mine under wraps – and so should you.


You're not a blogger. We're like the callers to Jim Rome; our motto is, "Have a take and don't suck."

The bottom line here is that the answers that were provided to the American public after 9/11 were demonstrably inaccurate. You appear to be attempting to tar all 9/11 Truth activists with the same ‘wacko conspiracy theory’ brush – and as such – your questions are loaded, dishonest and give a ‘leading the jury’ representation of the movement.


Which answers were demonstrably inaccurate?

3 - ..involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers

And this is where you basically prove my point. Remote controlled planes? Timed explosives? This appears to be a deliberate attempt to obscure the LEGITIMATE questions surrounding the events of 9/11 with straw men issues you can easily knock down.


Willie Rodriguez claims that there was an explosion just before the plane hit. I hear this constantly from Troofers as big evidence. It's not a strawman, it's a very common claim. That you apparently don't buy that one is great; don't presume to speak for everybody in your movement. Remote controlled planes is another very common claim.

9/11 Truth does not exist because we claim to HAVE the answers. 9/11 Truth exists because we DON’T have the answers.


There we can agree.

You can throw space beams and no-planes into the mix to confuse people, but I’m not so sure how you will get the underlying questions to go away. You may be able to temporarily discredit these questions – with fake ones of your own. You may be able to focus all your attention on the fringe elements of the movement who make outrageous claims – or claim to know things they simply cannot know. But, I am unsure how this strategy will withstand the test of time.


I encourage you to look through this blog and tell me how many of our posts are on space beams and no-planes. The list of 15 questions linked below at Counterknowledge did not include any questions about space beams or no-planes.

At some point historians will have to account for all of this – in detail. It is not a matter of ‘if’ – it is a matter of ‘when.’

You seem to want to block that.

strange
John Albanese | 12.15.08 - 5:32 pm | #


True historians like Wright and McDermott and (yes) Zelikow have already assembled a good part of the story.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home