Sunday, April 22, 2007

Harassment of 9/11 Truth Activists

There is overwhelming evidence that the government's version of 9/11 is impossible. However, the majority of people questioning the "official version" are now being harassed by other people claiming they are themselves 9/11 truthers.

The people harassing 9/11 activists appear to be those also promoting the theories that (1) directed energy weapons brought down the Twin Towers and/or (2) the videos of Boeings crashing into the Twin Towers were fake.

Many of us have emails and phone messages of threats of physical violence (direct or implied), harassment and intimidation against us. We are not whiners. In fact, we have largely held our tongues on the threats and intimidation we have received, because we did not want to make a mountain out of a molehill or distract the 9/11 movement.

But videos are now appearing on the web impliedly advocating violence or harassment against certain 9/11 activists, and listing their home addresses and phone numbers. Who made the videos? Folks promoting the theories that (1) directed energy weapons brought down the Twin Towers and/or (2) the videos of Boeings crashing into the Twin Towers were fake.

Is there any importance in the fact that those doing the intimidation happen to also be promoting the above theories?

Why do these acts of harassment and threats appear to be made when sincere 9/11 activists refuse to promote theories which they believe contradict the factual record and the laws of science?

Why do these acts of harassment and threats seem to be made right when 9/11 activists actually start being effective in spreading 9/11 truth?

What should we conclude about the purpose of such intimidation?

Postscript 1: If people in good faith believe that directed energy weapons destroyed the Twin Towers or that the videos of the Boeings were faked, wouldn't they want to reign in people promoting those theories who were threatening physical violence or trying to intimidate others? In other words, wouldn't people who actually believe those theories want to distance themselves from violent people, rather than associating with them and promoting their research? If not, why not?

I am sincere in my question: If you believe -- after reading the contrary evidence discussed here -- that facts and logic point towards these theories, why aren't you promoting them with facts and logic, instead of threats of violence and intimidation? I rally around whatever theory has the most factual and evidentiary support. Personally, I believe that the factual support put forward for the aforementioned theories has been totally disproven by the articles published at the Journal of 911 Studies and elsewhere. If you think there is stronger factual evidence for these theories, I am open to looking at it (but not while the people pushing it are threatening me).

Postscript 2: Of course, some defenders of the official story of 9/11 are also threatening violence - such as the threats made by Danny Bonaduce against Rosie O'Donnell. But this essay focuses solely on people calling themselves 9/11 activists who are making threats.

Postscript 3: I am ready to forgive those that have threatened me if they will just stop threatening me. And, frankly, I will feel no need to write any more on disinformation if all of the different threats and campaigns of harassment and intimidation against me are stopped.

Postscript 4: In response to this essay, two proponents of the directed-energy-weapons-destroyed-the-Twin-Towers and fake-video theories have alleged that threats have also been made against people promoting such theories. I do not know of any such threats, but I want to make it clear that I do not condone threats against anyone.

Postscript 5: I sincerely apologize if I have at any time incorrectly stated anyone's position. If so, it has been wholly unintentional.


Blogger Ningen said...

The facts and logic of a theory are independent of who is supporting it, and the acts of harassment you talk about could as easily be designed to discredit a valid theory.

11:45 PM  
Blogger Killtown said...

Alex, where is your evidence? You are a lawyer, you should know that you need evidence to prove your case. Or do we have to take the word of a lawyer and haters like John "I just focus on the cultural phenomenon" Albanese? Why don't you come out against all the despicable behavior Albanese has done/said to DEW/NPT theorists? Is that because Albanese is on your side?

It's obvious you made this post to smear DEW/NPT theorists. Pathetic.

1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's only one important question concerning the attacks, did the US gov't allow/participate in 9/11?

The answer to that query would explain the illegal wire-taps, suspension of habeas corpus, banning of books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and multiple wars based on lies.

How can the gov't be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?

In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov't to the same standard as it holds us to?

The gov't lied to us about Iraq and more Americans have died there than in 9/11. If the gov't lied about Iraq then why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the gov't lied about 9/11?

2:04 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

DEW and NPT are completely different arguments, one not dependent on the other. Why have they become associated?

George, Salter's argument is very weak. I invited him, Jenkins, and Jones to defend their assertions at Progressive Independent's 9/11 forum, but none of them were willing.

3:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the fruit of the tree is rotten, so is the tree. Anyone who threatens violence is not looking for truth, or accountability as to the events of 9/11. In fact, most likely such an ugly individual would be working for the same people who took down the Towers.

No doubt about it. The same thing happened in the 9/11 Truth group on MySpace. This little group of disinfo agents took over the forum, got rid of anybody else, and sit around bashing Alex Jones, and insisting that the Jesuits did it.
What a joke. Come to find out, they also had a private group where they spied on people, and figured out ways to undermine them.
If it is nasty, don't trust it.

5:30 AM  
Blogger Ningen said...

anonymous, I don't condone such behavior nor do I trust people who engage in such behavior. But as I have said, you can't judge a theory solely on the basis of who is espousing it - you have to look at the facts and reasoning offered in support of the theory. Outrageous behavior could as easily be designed to discredit a valid theory. Ultimately, all this is trivial, irrelevant, and distracting, given the importance of the question of what hit the Towers and whether faked videos were broadcast.

I know someone who is a strong supporter and defender of Steven Jones' work, but has also made excellent arguments about why an aluminum plane would be destroyed on impact with the much harder steel columns and would not transfer load to the columns as it was being destroyed. He identifies himself as an engineer and sounds like one. He is also civil and has nothing to do with the crew in question. I also have nothing to do with the crew in question, other than agreement on some broad propositions related to the faked broadcasts.

This person's name is not important. His point is really obvious once you think about it.
That's what's important.

12:32 AM  
Blogger Ningen said...

anonymous, in law, fruit of the poisonous tree can be valid evidence that is excluded because it was obtained in violation of constitutional rights. The poison is the means by which the evidence was obtained. Here, the validity of the argument does hinge on the credibility of some of the people making it - the argument either stands or falls on its own. Sure, an argument will tend to be discounted when coming from someone without credentials or from someone engaging in bad behavior of some sort. But that doesn't make it invalid. Imagine a world where Charles Manson had written the theory of relativity in blood on toilet paper and handed it to a jail guard, who threw it away. Would the theory have been less valid? Of course not.

12:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By Christian Peper

The truth about 911 must lead to a revolution against those in “authority”. It would be best that this revolution is peaceful but if there is violence then the people must defend themselves. To take all self defense off the table will leave the people at the mercy of killers like the BATF and Blackwater. It is time to stop supporting with tax money the fascist system that allowed 9/11/2001 to take place.

5:40 PM  
Blogger Jim Fetzer said...

A cast iron proof of video fakery was presented by Ace Baker this week on "The Dynamic Duo" with Jim Fetzer, namely: that the cut out of the building from UA 175 hitting the building IS NOT PRESENT at the time the plane entered the building. This is easily established by comparing later frames that show the cut out with the frame showing the plane entering. If it didn't happen when the plane entered the building, it didn't happen and the video has to be faked.

A cast iron proof that there cannot possibly have been massive pools of molten metal beneath the ground at the WTC consists in the realization that some 14 million gallons of water were dumped on the site. If there were vast pools of molten metal, that volume of water would have caused enormous steam explosions. They did not happen, even though the water was present. That means massive pools of molten mental cannot also have been present. You cannot have molten metal and massive water without steam explosions!

Ironically, of course, the second of these arguments is derived from Alex Floum's latest post, which pointed out that thermite can burn under water. But it burns VERY FAST can would have been completely consumed in 10 seconds or so. In othere words, thermite is A QUICKIE and cannot possibly explain those massive pools of molten metal--except, of course, they cannot have been present anyway! How about that? Why should anyone harass anyone whose reasoning is as shabby as this? He is doing a great job of making a fool of himself without anyone's help!

4:10 PM  
Blogger DJDaveMark said...

Sherlock Holmes, eliminate impossible, what remains, must be truth...

1. Lot's of people heard/saw something fly into the tower(s).
2. Lot's of videos have been faked (live & recorded).
3. Gravity-driven collapses impossible

Eliminating the impossibility of a gravity-driven collapse leaves the most probable solution... A demolition in a controlled manner to look like a collapse.

This means someone planned 3 to coincide with 1 and 2.

Moreover, 2 doesn't disprove that a particular flight hit a particular tower, just as 1 doesn't prove that a particular flight did hit a particular tower.

Although what is abundantly clear is that an illusion was planned, and you don't have to control every last person. Just key people in key positions who are told key things.

The 'planners' would have known which parts of their illusion needed controlling, and which parts they could control via past successful operations.

Their only stumbling block is the free internet and free humans with free speech... and I think we all know how these things are increasingly being controlled.

If we don't stop them now, we never will. If we fight among ourselves, we'll never start fighting them. Don't you think they know that!

5:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home