What Are People Supposed to Believe?
By James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
One of my favorite truisms for 911 Truth (9/11 Truth, 9-11 Truth, etc.), which I repeat to my own group all the time, is “On this key, central issue of our time, we ARE the media!” And no one disputes that statement. Since the regular media is allergic to, or intimidated from, investigating and informing objectively on the super-catalytic mother of crimes known as 9/11 – which just keeps unfolding day after day, with continued barefaced irresponsible neglect accompanied by reams of disinformation calculated to consistently confuse and misinform and dissuade people from bothering to ever find out the verifiable facts of the case, presumably for reasons of dire policy, we few who are informed and convinced of the unmatched importance of what came down on that day are morally motivated as decent world citizens to inform everyone of the truth.
So, we ARE the media on this! We don’t need bullhorns or stunts to try to get ourselves arrested to do the job. In fact, we don’t even have to make a lot of noise, period. And probably can’t, being a rather small group of people in any one place at one time. We just need to make like the little persistent noise (a rattle, or knock, a squeak or grating – I don’t often say a whine!) that you start to be aware of while driving. The key is not volume, but persistence and repetition. And, if you ever eventually hear it, (i.e., unless the radio drowns it out completely), you WILL CHECK IT OUT! If there’s something wrong (and there is!) people who are alerted, unless they are incurable fatalists of some sort, or over 106 and past caring, WILL eventually – probably pretty soon – investigate. And then, it will be up to them and their personal ethic what they do with the knowledge. But, deep down, they will know!
So, what is it we want them to find out and come to realize and know? I may, somewhere in the dark recesses of my grey matter, or in my bones, cherish a full-blown conspiracy theory that could vastly outshine the government/pet media’s touted cockamamie conspiracy theory about 9/11 (which we never imagine for a minute they believe a word of themselves). I happen to regard my conspiracy theory as vastly superior to theirs (as you, undoubtedly, do yours, too) because it is squarely based on established facts about 9/11 that the official conspiracy theory couldn’t begin to comport with, let alone account for. My theory accounts for ALL of the established facts I am aware of that I have been able, in a decade of doubt and then conviction , to gather and internalize. My resulting story of 9/11, I believe, is good, wholly adequate for its purpose, basically defensible, fit to share with anyone interested.
But, to my amazement, others exposed to the same basic set of established facts have constructed an understanding that differs from mine in sometimes crucial respects. And their reasoning for their somewhat different conclusions doesn’t always impress me, nor mine them. But generally – and I emphasize generally – we will still both agree on the established facts and that a full, impartial investigation is needed to sort them out.
And, unless your message is to be “Don’t think. Just accept my conclusions, I conclude that the facts, and not the details of our individual conclusions therefrom, should be what we urge on people as we spread the word. Because, those facts are the truth, whereas our personal conclusions and epiphanies may not be.
On a more somber note: At this point, I was going to illustrate what I meant by a reliance on facts alone by reproducing my very recent review on Amazon .com of a brand-new children’s book explaining 9/11 purporting to rely on the “facts” that planes hijacked by Muslim terrorists – terrible people – were flown into the World Trade Center on that day, causing catastrophic fires and wreaking havoc and death. I carefully responded by stating the established facts regarding temperatures and steel and the profiles of the buildings’ collapse, the anomaly of Building 7, and the presence of nanothermite, criticizing the author for ignoring virtually all of the facts that have been established and can be properly verified. I didn’t mention the Pentagon only because the author of the book didn’t. And, today, I found out when I went to scan my review that it has already been removed. And, likewise, I discovered that my review of David Ray Griffin’s Cognitive Infiltration, the second or third one posted, has also been selectively removed. A source of pride, I suppose, to be singled out like that; but, instead, I feel crushed, almost water-boarded. The Bill of Rights is down.
Currently, there is a move underway to define a consensus view from the conclusions reached by 911 Truthers on most conceivable aspects of our subject of concern. That is a legitimate, though necessarily flawed, exercise, and I think both its content and applied methodology with be interesting. But, I doubt that the consensus positions arrived at will ever be seen as of great significance. I hope not. For one thing, it may be that no one single individual will ever agree with or agree to adopt all of the consensus conclusions as her or his own. So, could everyone’s thought in fact be no one’s? Consider the meaning of that! Speaking for myself, I know that speculators will continue to speculate, convincingly or not, regardless. And facts will still be facts – even when they are misconstrued. And, I’m sure some haven’t yet been discovered.
Plus, it may even be discovered, when the pond is drained, that there were a few, or even more than a few, false positives (scavengers, or infiltrators) represented among the responders.
Besides that, if a “consensus” view comes to be urged on us and widely advertised in the media as “our position”, or “the position of the movement” on such and such, then it will become sort of like our “Apostles’ Creed”, with all of us viewed as “believers” or “members of the body”, or something like a “church”, however “democratic”. And, may God fofend!
Amen.
JH: 10/4/11
0 comments:
Post a Comment