911 Truth: Obstacles and Objectives
By James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
I’m with Adam of Cincinnati911Truth in proclaiming that finding and applying the truth about 9/11 is our proper objective, and not finding or shaping a consensus. Thus, viable alternatives need to be considered and accommodated on a continuing basis.
And yet, in my opinion, once-viable hypotheses concerning various aspects of the 9/11 occurrences that have already been disqualified as clearly and basically defective or wanting in an evidentiary sense by a vast majority of 911 Truth advocates need not be welcomed for a comeback, barring fundamental improvements, sometime later just because new people have become active in the movement who haven’t rehearsed the old arguments and concurred in decisive refutations a couple of years before. We’re not in the ‘just opinion’ business, and shouldn’t waste most of our energies turning over the same stones yet again once we have concluded what lies (and often, there are nothing but deliberate distractions or disinformational lies) beneath them.
One example would, I think, be the recurrent arguments about the role of ‘mini’nukes’. Perfectly plausible, at least as a source of sufficient energy. Except, where is the radiation that should have been in evidence, but evidently wasn’t?
And the same with some other explanations (as if the burden is on us to do the explaining!) Advocates of directed energy beams, apart from the problem that they don’t tend to say where the energy to bring down the buildings actually did come from (instead of merely alluding that energy from a passing Atlantic hurricane that day theoretically might have been harnessed in some unexplained way, for instance), don’t tell us what, in that case, nanothermite, of all things, was doing on the premises. And some such advocates say that energy was re-directed to destroy the buildings from space. If so, then, precisely what energy? And, how? And these advocates go so far as a) sliming a lead pioneer proponent of controlled demolition and the generally-convincing nanothermite evidence, rather than dealing with the evidence itself, and b) insisting that nanothermite per se doesn’t actually exist – it’s just comprised of component elements – conveniently overlooking that everything is made out of something. They thus allude that these top-flight physical scientists (Jones, Harrett, et al) don’t really even know what they’re seeing!
A third line of their counter-argument substitutes the capabilities of ordinary, incendiary Ebay-available thermite, around for at least a century, and exhibiting a low energy yield, for explosive, super militarized nanothermite, with an energy yield sufficient to do a lot of damage to mega structures, and a proven track record of so doing. Kevin Ryan, another of the prominent pro-controlled demolition scientists, reminded us recently that, indeed, something else may have been employed in the WTC buildings’ destruction in addition to nanothermite. But, directed energy from a hurricane? (They say the weather service didn’t report it, because they didn’t want people to make the connection). Could it have been redirected energy from outer space? If so, show us just how that would work – I mean, how it did work. Put up. Go farther than you’ve ever gone before at actually explaining how it happened your way. Don’t just say it could have, or it must have. Or else, don’t be surprised when you get a cool reception and a non-invite.
Israelis did 9/11? Did they call off the normal interceptor flights? Did they issue the clearances for obtaining super-restricted access to unique explosives and planting them in the buildings? Did they fly the aircraft (that we know now were decoys), either by live pilot or remote control? Did they nurture, house, advise, and train patsies Mohammed Atta, Hani Hanjour, and company, at their facilities? Did the Israelis run the military exercises that day? Or, were they plausibly co-involved (what we call con-spirators)?
A consensus is clearly, and justly, building in our community. But, let it be a consensus, finally, reflecting the truth – what really happened – In such a way that we can win with it in court.
Jlh / 8/22/11