29-10-2010, 05:20 PM
Yes, I am aware of the Rock Creek Free Press article and its allegations and the debate, centered on and around 9/11 blogger. It might be premature for me to say too much at this time. Very recently I have been in contact with some key figures in the 9/11 community and I do not wish at this time to speak for them. I have invited one (and will eventually invite others) to join us at DPF. Then, they get to speak for themselves.
Certainly I am in agreement that any theory on anything is valid if it is open to inquiry, debate, rules of debate and logic and critical thinking, everyone's willingness to "put up" and defend sources (and more importantly retract or change as appropriate when they have been proven wrong). This is how I find myself here at DPF.
I have had some concerns about the 'cognitive infiltration' of the 9/11 movement for some time; since then, we have had Cass Sunstein's published ideas, Griffin's masterful rebuttal in book form, and more. And many of us are aware of the background experience in and around JFK (the CIA memo noting disinformation tactics and strategies, the actual histories of the debates and arguments -- about which I am a distant observer --, the Vincent Salandria thesis, and the Evica/Drago model). I openly point to the Salandria thesis and the Evica/Drago model as examples which can be mimicked in the 9/11 debate.
As I am but a small bit player and newcomer in the 9/11 world, I shall bide my time and watch for further opportunities to help shape the direction.
As I noted in the recent discussion, the 9/11 movement needs:
to adopt some serious effort -- I suggested concept mapping technologies, which is not unalike what is done here in re: Dealey Plaza with maps, charts, threads, films, photos, etc. -- in the assembly of the evidence and argument;
needs to strategize its approach, figuring out where its energies need to be focused, assessing the context and background of the debate (in light of the economics, war issues, politics, etc. of the US); and
conduct an assessment or create a map of the power versus salience factors among protagonist and antagonist groups, people, and organizations (in other words, to chart who has the impact and visibility for both advancing and restraining the public debate).
Certainly I am in agreement that any theory on anything is valid if it is open to inquiry, debate, rules of debate and logic and critical thinking, everyone's willingness to "put up" and defend sources (and more importantly retract or change as appropriate when they have been proven wrong). This is how I find myself here at DPF.
I have had some concerns about the 'cognitive infiltration' of the 9/11 movement for some time; since then, we have had Cass Sunstein's published ideas, Griffin's masterful rebuttal in book form, and more. And many of us are aware of the background experience in and around JFK (the CIA memo noting disinformation tactics and strategies, the actual histories of the debates and arguments -- about which I am a distant observer --, the Vincent Salandria thesis, and the Evica/Drago model). I openly point to the Salandria thesis and the Evica/Drago model as examples which can be mimicked in the 9/11 debate.
As I am but a small bit player and newcomer in the 9/11 world, I shall bide my time and watch for further opportunities to help shape the direction.
As I noted in the recent discussion, the 9/11 movement needs:
to adopt some serious effort -- I suggested concept mapping technologies, which is not unalike what is done here in re: Dealey Plaza with maps, charts, threads, films, photos, etc. -- in the assembly of the evidence and argument;
needs to strategize its approach, figuring out where its energies need to be focused, assessing the context and background of the debate (in light of the economics, war issues, politics, etc. of the US); and
conduct an assessment or create a map of the power versus salience factors among protagonist and antagonist groups, people, and organizations (in other words, to chart who has the impact and visibility for both advancing and restraining the public debate).
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"