Widening Rift In 9-11 Truth Community - Chance Differences or Design?

[Peter Presland]

Sad isn't it? I think Ed J might have something to say on this too. In the 911 scenario there are at least many facts and this is what needs to be in center place. Theories are where they get you divided. Like the old Stalin/Trotsky divide in the left.

Spot-on Magda.

There should be NO taboo theories whatsoever. No matter this oh-so-convenient "it makes the truth movement look ridiculous" crap. Collect the facts then massage and adjust theories to best explain them - no matter how off the wall they may appear at first blush.

Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley and Michael Green have produced good stuff on 9-11. The problem is that once anyone achieves a modicum of expertise in a particular subject area they tend to assume the role of gatekeeper of what is or is not a viable explanation/possibility. Filters (blinkers) are progressively applied such that there are acceptable facts and there are unacceptable facts.

Exactly the same is happening on 7-7. The J7 web site and forum is a massive and impressive resource but get this from one of it's principles in relation to the available videos on the subject:

A number of documentaries about the events of 7th July 2005 have appeared over the years, both mainstream and independent. However, not many of them are of a very high standard and the end products add to the confusion that surrounds the events of 7/7 or, in near-perfect examples of the perfidious method Nietzsche described, attempt to create an alternative narrative based on faulty arguments, flawed logic, and the same lack of evidence upon which the official narrative is based. You can read J7's views on one of the more scandalous and utterly reprehensible 7/7 related films here.

"Scandalous and utterly reprehensible" eh? and that about one of the most widely circulated and plausible pieces of amateur sleuth-dom available on the matter. But "tut tut - you mustn't watch that my child, it might damage your innocent faith in the goodness of Authority and we can't have that now can we?" It's a good example of the superior 'we know best' attitude among those who, on the face of it are the most high profile official narrative skeptics but simply cannot allow the possibility that the farmer has anything other than the sheeples' best interests in mind - or else they KNOW the score and are doing their damndest to hide it.

It is at the very root of the near impossibility of getting information deeply subversive of any official narrative widely circulated.