simonshack 4 Mar 31 2010, 06:02 PM wrote:
To ATTC :
I agree with some of your thoughts, such as : All the memorial portraits do not have to be photoshop/doctored images. That is one aspect. Another aspect is how they created the fictitious victims. I agree there may have been different methods used there too; some completely made-up from scratch - and some 'lent' identities of real /"backstopped" persons or variations thereof.
Such a huge false-flag operation must have employed multifaceted strategies to make everything all the more complex to figure out. I hope we both agree on this too.
Where I do NOT agree with you is that we should 'adapt' our investigations to suit Joe Public's ability/propensity/disposition to understand and accept the research. We are not into marketing - or into selling a product. As much as you are concerned that the 'zero victims' contention may put off people, it has to be considered as a proposition on the merit of a logical line of reasoning. As I have written on other occasions (and to this day, no one has confronted me on this issue) the logic behind a "no victims" strategy makes, IMHO, perfect sense. What if 500 people really died in the towers? Would they not one day discover that 2500 families were nowhere to be found? How inanely silly would it be for the perps to let themselves be exposed to such a potential liability, ready to explode at any time, backed by 500 angry and motivated families and their lawyers? It simply makes no sense at all. I'll stop here, inviting you to reply to this specific aspect.
I agree we should not compromise the truth just to suit Joe Public.
IN fact I think all of this is conceptual. I think when you want to tell Joe Public the truth you bring him along to gradually distrust entities and their sources.
First you point out to him the big picture of our monetary system. After all monetary fraud is the easiest thing to accept. You show him the work of MIchael Ruppert and others that expose the CIA drug smuggling.
You use the wonderful analogy of the mafia. ( If the mafia can get away with what they can get away with without near the power or influence of TPTB, imagine what TPTB can get away with.)
Bu my concern was not just in compromise for Joe Public, another reason I was suggesting to not push the 100% angle was again to protect against unauthentic but seemingly real people. That they have taken the time to backstop that much. Or even stolen identities. Based on a few concentrated people, they could "debunk" the research. But if we leave the door open say to speak for just even a handful to be real, they can't go that route. They would never even be willing to take the time to try to fully back stop 3000 people. Just like they never really took the time to try to do that for the SSDI.
And one reason why I am willing to accept the no victims theory is because something that never sat well with me was this idea that people in one of the buildings went back inside their building after the other tower was struck. Im sorry it just doesn't make a lick of sense to me why someone would have told these people to "go back to work" or even why they would comply with such a command.
Also I've been thinking, how much easier it would be to recruit these paid actors, the demolition men, etc if they knew they were in on a plan that would actually not really take away lives but only seemingly do so.
Can we agree on this at least, in at least presentation of information like this to Joe Public we should push the MANY/MOST line, but among those of us who are already awoken up to the lies it's ok to dig amongst the possibility of ZERO?
Because let's face it we can't be too dismissive of Joe Public if we ever hope to truly let this real truth movement threaten to overtake the controlled one.