INFORMATION, EVIDENCE, AND THE VARIETY OF TRUTHERS
by James Hufferd, Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
What do we believe? We’re all different, as members of a family are different – in our case, we’re open individuals carrying information in our minds in stark contradiction to pervasive government and media messages about 9/11, still the determiner of our world going forward.
But should our thinking in this regard go beyond a simple rejection of the 9/11 scenario – amounting to a sort of gospel of outward-directed blame and years upon years of militant vengeance-driven violence, foisted at the cost of liberty on Americans and the world beginning on the very day itself, starting less than an hour into the timeframe of the fateful incidents? Do we possess, or should we admit to, only negating ideas, amounting to a simple rejection, based on evidence, of the official story? Or can we legitimately give expression to notions, however sketchy, regarding what the evidence suggests DID happen that day as well?
Some of our number draw the line at negation, and (questionably) claim to have “no idea” what actually did take place, or at whose instigation, holding that developing any positive conclusions from the available evidence would amount to mere “speculation”, serving no good purpose. Frequently, these purists remind us that constructing and promoting theories as to what happened is the role of professionals (prosecutors in this case), not amateurs like ourselves, who are less systematic and far more prone to error. And they are probably right, as far as that goes. Still, many of us draw additional assurance and persuasive credibility with others from applying the considerable amount of courtroom-ready evidence we have available to determining what very well may have occurred.
Such is the role of prosecutors, to be sure. But, we all extrapolate for ourselves every day regarding matters in virtually every other part of our lives. So, why refrain from speculation anchored in solid evidence regarding 9/11? It certainly creates more interest in the subject.
Working with our local 911 Truth groups and reading our daily blogs and posted articles exposes us regularly to all the different mindsets and styles of dealing with what has become known and been alleged about the incidents of 9/11 and their broader context and tragic aftermath of policies, actions, and cover-up.
Some of our number, mainly the first category I described, only deal with and comment on the forensics of the events and note that the pertinent data fail miserably and repeatedly to match up with the details of the official story. These more-or-less purist Truthers are invaluable to us, because their sharper focus enables them to better spot and emphasize contradictions and violations of physical laws in the official narrative, alerting and educating the rest of us.
At the other extreme are all those among us who don’t pretend to stop with 9/11, but inform themselves and us also and endlessly about chemtrails, vaccinations, Waco, Oklahoma City, JFK, FEMA camps, the North American Union, BP, the Federal Reserve, NWO, HAARP, Bilderberg, Operation Mockingbird, alleged gun control plots, the global warming hoax, yada, yada. All of which is fine for personal investigation, and no doubt deserving of attention.
But, when thrown at the public in our outreach as a mammoth, mind-blowing package in addition to and conjunction with 9/11, it tends to fuel the common accusation that we’re “conspiracy theorists” and cranks. And widening our scope to such an extent naturally destroys our focus as a movement dedicated to the truth of 9/11, perceived as the operational vortex of the matrix of evil we’re trying to confront. There is, after all, plenty of substance in 9/11 itself for us to deal with, and new findings and aspects revealed almost daily. Hence, we need to strive to maintain our focus.
What about the different styles and modes of presentation we encounter and practice ourselves? What about Alex Jones, a real polarizer among us? True, he wields a mean bullhorn and, in true Texas fashion, is all elbows and shoulders at times and tends to bully and monopolize. And he doesn’t always seem to completely fathom all the nuances. But, at the same time, he’s a great encourager to us all to reject the thought of intimidation. And he certainly reaches and persuades infinitely more people than, for instance, I do, or probably than you. So, he has my support.
The same with Jesse Ventura, a great guy and a tower of courage, possibly dulled a bit by blunt object trauma over the years. He’s nobody’s idea of an intellectual. But, when well-scripted, he sways and informs tens of millions. What an asset! Different folks, different strokes – and don’t ever forget that! Rejoice in our Kevin Ryan, and our Steven Jones and Richard Gage as well, scientifically grounded, indefatigable and monumentally courageous all, and in Dr. David Ray Griffin, the genius and soul of 911 Truth.
We could go all the way through all of us as filters and presenters of the truth we all know, and we’d all differ somewhat in our style and our message – and it’s all to the good. And it is vital that we all come to understand that, as long as we are in agreement that the evidence we have disproves or very seriously challenges the official, malignant version of what happened on 9/11, it’s nothing less than self-destructive for us to argue viciously and splinter over personal differences or versions or details of versions of what caused the collapse of the Towers and Bldg. 7 or made the hole in the Pentagon. Our common demand for a real investigation alone is enough to unite us all.
So, as long as we stay focused and make logical and scientific sense, and don’t misstate the facts that all of us share, we are good to go. Multiplicity is our name; the truth of 9/11 our game. Let’s change the world – as only we can!