I only say that it has the signs. The exact details of your agenda only you know, but it's very clear that your goal is gaining adepts, or "low hanging fruit" as you call them here in this post you wrote in 911blogger:
People who are either technically aware enough to see through the holes in the official account of 911, or open minded enough to look at the facts in a balanced way have already done so. In terms of garnering support for the 911 truth cause you could call those people, for want of a better phrase "low hanging fruit", easy picking. Where does that leave our movement as far as attracting the support of those who are yet to see or acknowledge 911 for what it was?
We already have a central figure who is determined to scream "inside job" at the audience in the shape of Mr Jones, and in my opinion, although this serves a purpose, there is no need for another screamer.
As some on here will be aware, in the past few months our research group has been pushing the issue of omissions and errors in the WTC7 report and in doing so we have debated many people on line who are opposed to this evidence being addressed at any level. let alone the level that we are pursuing NIST at. What has become crystal clear to me throughout this process is that these people are scared when we stick to the bare facts, and this tactic is one that those who oppose us cannot find a defense for.
To clarify, when I approach a would be debunker and steer clear of claims like "inside job", "US govt complicity", and even "freefall acceleration and thermitic material", but just stick to "they got the report wrong, missed out elements and made errors and should redo their analysis" - there is no defense. The issue is there in black and white and is undeniable. The only response that opposers can resort to is to try and move onto the aforementioned points that I have chosen for now, to steer clear of, and that fact alone indicates where the WTC7 report weak point really is.
Inside job, freefall, thermite etc have woken up all the people that they are going to in terms of mass. I believe it is now time to change the game plan and to use the numbers that these pertinent and relevant issues have helped gain for our cause. And I am convinced that the way to do this is to ask people to take that first step of entertaining the possibility that the WTC7 report is provably false, and allow them to draw their own conclusions rather than ask them to step straight to the finish line of "911 was an inside job". This approach has to date opened up a dialogue with both NIST and the Office of the Inspector General. I dare say that these people would rather not be talking to us, but the fact that we are focusing on the provable errors and not widening out the issue doe not afford them that option to dismiss and ignore us.
Exactly the same can be said of Abby's audience. There is nothing to be gained from Abby playing to the crowd and appealing to people like ourselves who are already convinced by declaring that "911 was an inside job". Far better for her to simply ask the questions that she has in a calm and rational way and in doing so making the truth of 911 an approachable topic rather than a polarising issue. If this is her intent then I applaud it. We should maybe consider that this could be a scaling back of approach rather than an abandonment of former belief on Abby's part, and allow her to play the game her way without being overly critical.
As an interesting aside, it is also my opinion that if RT had been opposed to what Abby said going out on the airwaves, we would not be discussing the topic now, because it would not have aired. RT are just not that stupid. I do not pretend to know what kind of game RT, or indeed Abby is playing here, but when I consider the attention that both have brought to this issue in the past, I can do little else but applaud that, and hope.
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973We already have a central figure who is determined to scream "inside job" at the audience in the shape of Mr Jones, and in my opinion, although this serves a purpose, there is no need for another screamer.
As some on here will be aware, in the past few months our research group has been pushing the issue of omissions and errors in the WTC7 report and in doing so we have debated many people on line who are opposed to this evidence being addressed at any level. let alone the level that we are pursuing NIST at. What has become crystal clear to me throughout this process is that these people are scared when we stick to the bare facts, and this tactic is one that those who oppose us cannot find a defense for.
To clarify, when I approach a would be debunker and steer clear of claims like "inside job", "US govt complicity", and even "freefall acceleration and thermitic material", but just stick to "they got the report wrong, missed out elements and made errors and should redo their analysis" - there is no defense. The issue is there in black and white and is undeniable. The only response that opposers can resort to is to try and move onto the aforementioned points that I have chosen for now, to steer clear of, and that fact alone indicates where the WTC7 report weak point really is.
Inside job, freefall, thermite etc have woken up all the people that they are going to in terms of mass. I believe it is now time to change the game plan and to use the numbers that these pertinent and relevant issues have helped gain for our cause. And I am convinced that the way to do this is to ask people to take that first step of entertaining the possibility that the WTC7 report is provably false, and allow them to draw their own conclusions rather than ask them to step straight to the finish line of "911 was an inside job". This approach has to date opened up a dialogue with both NIST and the Office of the Inspector General. I dare say that these people would rather not be talking to us, but the fact that we are focusing on the provable errors and not widening out the issue doe not afford them that option to dismiss and ignore us.
Exactly the same can be said of Abby's audience. There is nothing to be gained from Abby playing to the crowd and appealing to people like ourselves who are already convinced by declaring that "911 was an inside job". Far better for her to simply ask the questions that she has in a calm and rational way and in doing so making the truth of 911 an approachable topic rather than a polarising issue. If this is her intent then I applaud it. We should maybe consider that this could be a scaling back of approach rather than an abandonment of former belief on Abby's part, and allow her to play the game her way without being overly critical.
As an interesting aside, it is also my opinion that if RT had been opposed to what Abby said going out on the airwaves, we would not be discussing the topic now, because it would not have aired. RT are just not that stupid. I do not pretend to know what kind of game RT, or indeed Abby is playing here, but when I consider the attention that both have brought to this issue in the past, I can do little else but applaud that, and hope.
And now that that basis that you believed was rock solid is shredded into pieces, you're squirming and struggling to find a shadow of a doubt, a point in which to base new accusations in order to enable you to continue with the "game plan".
That's not what people who really care about truth do.
That's what people with an agenda do.
What agenda exactly? That you know. I don't.
