The www.questionsquestions.net webpage has been updated. Brian
Salter has added a blog to it, called the "QQ Blog", which I recommend you bookmark.
Its most recent additions are about the 911 Truth Movement, and they,
along with his main site, contain links to different sites about the 911 physical evidence, which Brian Salter's persuasive
commentary suggests we need to examine or re-examine. Things are not so settled Pentagon-wise as they appear to be by so many in the movement. Additionally, it's unfortunate how many in the movement have so quickly taken new stuff in the "In
Plane Site" DVD to be the gospel, not to mention our savior, without careful study.
Previously, it was easy to dismiss
criticism of such material because it came from those in the movement already suspect (with good reason) of being fake 911
activists from prior activities & lines, and from those who put forth criticism by mere argument, without coming up with
any goods - like the criticism of the DVD by those who hadn’t yet seen what was on it, for example, or the John Judge
type of evidence (‘you’ve got to live in D.C. to understand the pentagon’ & his unnamed stewardess-friend’s
recognition of bracelet on dead hand pix) for other examples, all of which was effectively, and with great wit, shot down.
This is different, however, and
this kind of prudent criticism and hole-finding (no pun intended :-) to the physical evidence claims must be taken seriously,
and be seriously examined by those in the movement. It makes no sense to continue to promote debunkable and potentially debunkable stuff along with links to
same to complete newbies on an individual basis or, of course, in prime time mainstream corporate media by those who appear
to represent or be "the movement". To do so, is to completely undercut ourselves.
Two quick examples of debunkable
claims from the In Plane Site DVD:
the third anniversary of the attacks, I had the opportunity to talk with Dave Von Kleist when he appeared at a 9/11 program
put on by Jimmy Walter in NYC, during the program’s intermission before he had spoken, and after the complete program
was over. During the intermission, I asked Von Kleist what he thought of Brian
Salter's debunking of that portion of his In Plane Site DVD about the ‘plume of smoke while both towers
allegedly still standing’ claim, and he admitted that he’d gotten that section wrong and would soon be coming
out with a revised DVD correcting same. After all the evening’s presentations
had concluded, I asked him why he hadn’t disclaimed that portion of his
DVD publicly and he indicated that he had wanted to do so, even pulled out of his bag to show me a CD he had brought with
him for that very purpose which contained the accurate footage someone had sent him showing this plume of smoke was, in fact,
from the South Tower’s collapse, but that Jimmy Walter hadn’t agreed to give him an extra five minutes to the
time already allotted to his presentation so that he could present it along with an explanation. Although I’m glad to see that Von Kleist has subsequently changed his website and withdrawn the claim
he made in his original video (see http://www.911inplanesite.com/911explosion.html ), the way he did this, in his “director’s cut”, is so very coy and indirect that Jimmy Walter has yet
to catch on and he is still promoting this claim very prominently on his 911 website, the link to which is getting, as Brian
Salter points out, mention in corporate mainstream media (see http://reopen911.org/books_dvds.htm).
Another example is that section
of the DVD regarding those bright flashes of light which are emphatically described as occurring immediately prior to each
planes’ impact of both the North & South Towers, which I didn’t find at all persuasive and believe many viewers
may easily laugh off, dismissing the whole 911 truth movement in the bargain if this is the type of evidence we’re relying
on. To me, those flashes of light could easily be part of or the result of the planes’
very impact into the towers. On the DVD, there is simply no freeze-frame side
angle view that you'd expect based on the certainty with which the claim is presented, no freeze frame where you see one of
the planes before it made impact – you know, with a space between the plane and the tower before the plane hit it with
a flash visible on either tower.
The promotion of clearly debunkable
claims is a serious disservice to the movement where we might get only one chance for someone to consider the possibility
that all is not what it appears to be.
At the very least, Jimmy Walter
should change his 911 websites immediately, and Von Kleist should require those promoting his video to stop repeating an admittedly
bogus claim made in it.
Additionally, the rest of us need
to stop promoting and to disavow the parts in dispute in the face of such prudent criticism and controversy, which again,
we need to examine. There's enough uncontroversial MIHOP evidence out there
that sincere activists should simply not be putting forward the legitimately controversial as if it were the holy grail --
even if you find the controversial very credible -- because 911 truth is already controversial enough. It's irresponsible not to put our best, most solid, foot forward.
Certainly I am not trying to stifle debate of the science WITHIN our movement, but this is not what should be given
out to complete newbies. I know, it means a lot of work, and a lot of revising
of materials . . . but it's still a good thing, being able to rethink decisions made in the heat of the moment by those anxious
for a very effective, even slick History channel-like video for our side, and those anxious with that stupid goal of corporate
media attention, which either I’ve grown weary of railing against, or am simply too disgusted to continue to rail against,
I’m not sure which.
This is not a static movement &
there’s so much old and new stuff not yet digested or considered. And as
with anything, you can’t just follow the crowd. You’ve got to do
your own thinking and your own examining. Don’t let yourself lull into
the convenience of using the same flyer or poster containing things or approaches
which you might not believe to be best. A person’s introduction to the
movement may be their last if we’re not more careful. My own flyer and
poster needs to undergo frequent changes - more than they actually do because of time constraints.
And because of time constraints,
forgive me for not being able to respond to emails as soon as I’d like to be able to.
911 Truth Movement Musings (Watching