David Ray Griffin nominated for 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

[TorsteinViddal]

Hi,

as my first post here, some good news from Oslo, Norway.

The left-leaning daily newspaper Klassekampen (class struggle) read by the chattering classes, academics & progressives nationwide, covered on July 11th the fact that professor David Ray Griffin is among the nominees for this year's Nobel Peace Prize - where the winner will be announced in October.

As I say in the interview it's not very likely he'll win, as long as a warmonger like Thorbjørn Jagland is the head of the Nobel Committee.

But anyway, this is the first time ever that a nationwide daily newspaper covers and mentions 9/11 Truth Norway. The article in itself is OK and fair - perspectives/frames are always important - but the heading and choice of debunker is ... well ... traditional.

The heading is «Vil gi fredspris til 11. september-fornekter» - literally «Wants to give peace prize to September 11 denier». And the debunker who rounds up the story is introduced thus: «Forsker ved Holocaust-senteret Terje Emberland», «Researcher at the Holocaust Center, Terje Emberland».

Maybe the journalist - Hans Petter Sjøli - treated the topic fair & square, but the editors/TPTB wanted a more despicable frame for the story?

Making the mere suggestion that a «9/11 denier» should be qualified for the Nobel Prize something nasty and hatefull?

Anyways, treat me nice, I am new...

Oh, and the URL for the story is
http://www.911truth.no/2009/07/klasseka ... edsprisen/

[fish5133]

Who does the nominating? This is good news and ground making.

[TorsteinViddal]

Hi Fish,

the nominators for last year were these:
http://www.911truth.no/wp-content/uploa ... 2008-b.pdf

I'm not sure about this year, as these things are normally kept secret for 50 years...

More on that and on who can nominate people here:
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomina ... -nominate/

[illeagalhunter]

As much as this would shake the establishment to the foundations, he will not win . We can live in hope.

[item7]

Judging on past performances like Kissinger getting the Nobel prize for peace and more recently Al Gore getting the Nobel Prize for selling snake oil or whatever the category was, I wouldn't put too much hope in the Nobel Committee being in favour of peace or honesty or truth.

[TorsteinViddal]

As I said in the paper, it's not very likely he'll win. But that is not really the reason why things look better: The fair coverage in a nationwide paper is.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Agreed. Not likely he'll win. It would be as good as declaring 9/11 an inside job internationally.

Maybe it's best that he doesn't win as it would create blanket suspicion of Griffin in already doubtful quarters.

The exposure is good enough for now.

[Leiff]

Interesting article...

"9/11 Truth" and its role in the game
http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -game.html

[chek]

Interesting article...

"9/11 Truth" and its role in the game
http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -game.html

Trite and trivial article?
Agreed!

Interesting?
Only if that sort of surface-hugging rhetoric rings your bells.

[Pikey]

TorsteinViddal welcome to the lions den and thanx for your post and setting up this thread.

The tough and key question from a truthseekers POV is who nominated him?

Fish 5133 has already raised this but sadly theres no response to date:-

Who does the nominating?

I looked into the nomination process for the NPP in the late 90s when I was considering nominating David Icke. Its a totally controlled system and the prize is named after the guy who invented explosives: Dynamite!

Godsavethe team wrote:-

Maybe it's best that he doesn't win as it would create blanket suspicion of Griffin in already doubtful quarters

Whilst Dr Griffin does an excellent job of destroying the credibility of the official conspiracy theory of 911 in his books imo there are legitimate concerns that he is there to steer the sheeple away from the truth.

Dr Griffin demands a public investigation but falls short of saying by whom.

I have seen the guy speak and met him and his wife at Conwy Hall in London and do have suspicions, especially when he chooses to ignore evidence offered by top quality highly qualified researchers/investigators the likes of Andrew Johnson, Dr Judy Wood.

[Stephen]

Why not David Icke for the peace prize?

[ian neal]

Welcome Torstein

I agree that he has v little chance of winning but it is useful publicity and yes of course the NPP is largely a bullsh1t exercise in manufacturing a false worldview.

As for the article by M Jarvie, there are several flaws in his argument.

Firstly those calling for a new investigation do not all think as one, so generalisations are dangerous.

Second, those that think that the corporate media have chosen to focus on the most ‘credible’ advocates of 9/11 truth to represent the movement are having laugh. More often than not they continue to ignore those I would consider most credible (in the eyes of a mainstream audience).

Thirdly, the NWO globalists are not ‘socialist’ and those that describe their despotic, full-spectrum dominance, totalitarian plans as socialist do us all a great disservice. This isn’t about left and right wing politics. It is about protecting the people from the abuses of the state. It is about civil liberties and the rule of law driven by popular awakening to the truth.

I agree that short of a popular ‘revolution’ leading to wholesale reform of our systems (of national and international government) then all calls for greater global governance must be resisted and DRG invites these suspicions when he advocates greater global governance without clearly setting out the need for this popular ‘revolution’ first.

But Mr Jarvie doesn’t actually say who he believes would represent 9/11 truth in a more effective and credible way. This criticism of DRG is not new and those making this argument have typically come from those promoting ‘no plane theories’, TV fakery and Judy Woods’ research.

To me those that believe that Judy Woods is a credible advocate for 9/11 truth are being as naive as DRG when he promotes global governance.

Firstly the ideas she presents are so far beyond most peoples’ understanding of science, her research will not connect with popular opinion any time soon.

Secondly Judy Woods is a really bad public presenter of science. I’ve watched her DVD presentations and I guarantee that a vast majority of her academic peers would agree with me that the way she presents her arguments in a lecture format is very poor indeed (and that’s being kind).

As some will know I’m involved in www.reinvestigate911.org. The fact that I support a reinvestigation does not mean that hold the views Mr Jarvie attributes to me. I agree with him that the wheels of power go far higher than those ‘elected’ to the white house. I agree with him that those with something to hide will try to block and/or influence (control) any new investigation and should there be a new investigation will spin how it is reported in order to serve their interests and agenda. Of course they will. Talk about stating the bleeding obvious.

That does not mean that a campaigning for a new investigation is either a waste of time or a vehicle for a limited hang out. Gaining support for a new investigation from opinion formers e.g. politicians, celebrities, etc. will build the credibility of 9/11 truth and the wider truth movement. It will force the issues and questions higher up the political agenda and so force wider awareness. The inevitable attempts to control a new investigation will attract further public criticism and scrutiny, further forcing the issue into the public eye. A new investigation will result in new evidence being disclosed, new witnesses/whistleblowers stepping forward and new opportunities to ask those difficult questions.

But let’s be clear, campaigning for a reinvestigation is ONE step along a long road. It is ONE strategy amongst many strategies. In campaigning for a reinvestigation, naturally we will choose those books, films, speakers and fields of evidence that we believe to be most convincing, most credible. Not credible in the eyes of the ‘9/11 truth movement’ however we define that, but credible in the eyes of the wider public: Which obviously means ignoring those that promote the most contentious opinions. So, no, we won’t be putting forward ‘holocaust revisionists’ or cross-dressing messiahs any time soon.

However just because I support a reinvestigation does not mean that I’m unaware of the wider picture or that I support world government or that I’m a puppet or unwitting stooge of globalist gangsters and the same applies to other people pursuing this tactic.

Finally I notice that DRG is a ‘key team member’ of Fred Burks’ site

http://www.wanttoknow.info/aboutus

A website that’s not afraid to tackle subjects like media control, energy cover-ups and mind control. Hmmm.

[Thermate911]

Great post, Mr.Neal. I particularly savour ...

...just because I support a reinvestigation does not mean that I’m unaware of the wider picture or that I support world government or that I’m a puppet or unwitting stooge of globalist gangsters and the same applies to other people pursuing this tactic.

That's quite an impressive line-up at Want To Know

Kristina Borjesson - Emmy award-winning journalist, radio show co-host

Fred Burks - Presidential interpreter, website manager, cover-up researcher

Norma Carr-Ruffino, PhD - Professor of management, author of nine books

Steven M. Greer, MD - ER physician, author, founder of Disclosure Project

David Ray Griffin, PhD - Professor, theologian, author or editor of over 20 books

Leonard Horowitz, DMD - Author, speaker, authority in public health education

Michael Levine - 25-year veteran of DEA, award-winning author, radio show host

Peter Lindemann, DSc - Author, researcher, expert in field of new energy

Pamela J. Monday, PhD - Professional counselor, lecturer, researcher

Peter Phillips, PhD - Professor specializing in media, director of Project Censored

Carol Rutz - Author, lecturer, researcher, recovered mind control survivor

Peter Dale Scott, PhD - UC Berkeley professor, author, cover-up researcher

Paul Thompson - Author, researcher, creator and manager of the 9/11 Timeline

Charles S. Viar - Expert in intelligence and counterintelligence, 30 years experience

[Andrew Johnson]

Several points to address in your post Ian (from a rainy Wales)

Firstly those calling for a new investigation do not all think as one, so generalisations are dangerous.

Hmm - no mention of those actually doing an investigation and putting it into a legal framework?

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST ... Wood.shtml

To me those that believe that Judy Woods is a credible advocate for 9/11 truth are being as naive as DRG when he promotes global governance.

Naive? What about the evidence? And if I am naive for going to ground zero and looking at the half-dismantled banker's trust building etc and helping to get documents submitted to court, then who do you suggest does the investigation, how should it be done and what is the best evidence? Or shall we just debate in on web forums for another 3 or 4 years?

Firstly the ideas she presents are so far beyond most peoples’ understanding of science, her research will not connect with popular opinion any time soon.

Can you give me examples please? This has not been my experience at all. As I have said here before, and elsewhere, everyone I talk to knows which way up a car normally is and they are most intrigued to hear about Hurricane Erin being closest to NYC on 911. They have absloutely no problems accepting these things as real. And why do you feel it necessary to go into this level of criticism on this thread, which was about DRG. Just because Pikey mentioned Dr Wood and my name briefly? OK, right.

Secondly Judy Woods is a really bad public presenter of science. I’ve watched her DVD presentations and I guarantee that a vast majority of her academic peers would agree with me that the way she presents her arguments in a lecture format is very poor indeed (and that’s being kind).

Goodness - so the actual evidence doesn't matter then? It's all to do with packaging and presentation is it? Well, try this for size then. In any case, it's Dr Judy Wood not "Judy Woods".

Part 1

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LugeYb4h4aM[/youtube]

Part 2
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1pRAH4ZwU0[/youtube]

As some will know I’m involved in www.reinvestigate911.org. The fact that I support a reinvestigation does not mean that hold the views Mr Jarvie attributes to me.

So what views do you hold? What is the most compelling evidence? What happened? Have you got a research-based website of your own? Who should head up the investigation, or are you happy to leave all these decisiions to someone else? Are you happy that Niel's Harrit ignores 9/11 evidence and what he has posted is derivative of the research of Steven E Jones and neither Harrit, Jones or their group have put their evidence in a legal framework?

Finally I notice that DRG is a ‘key team member’ of Fred Burks’ site

http://www.wanttoknow.info/aboutus

A website that’s not afraid to tackle subjects like media control, energy cover-ups and mind control. Hmmm.

Here we are partly in agreement - indeed, I wrote about Fred Burks' role in the break up of the Scholars group over 2 years ago.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60

I've learned a lot since then - and put some of it in a 9/11 related court filed affidavit. Seemed like a more direct way of getting a new investigation going.

FUnny old world really.

Yours naively,

Andrew

[ian neal]

Hi Andrew

I'll reply over weekend. Got to work today

[Thermate911]

If I may be allowed to briefly butt in on what is obviously a long-running face-to-face dialectic here, the snag with the Dr.Judy Wood 'evidence' Andrew, is that it is largely un-provable. There is nothing in the Wood/Fetzer/Reynolds stance that will bring us any nearer an impartial 9/11 reinvestigation - all it has done is sow massive division and discord amongst 9/11 researchers.

Surely a better approach for those genuinely seeking justice in this matter, would be to shelve differences and imponderable details for the day when subpoena power is granted to an International Court. Once that is achieved and key witnesses present their evidence under oath (I'm thinking of Kurt Sonnenfeld and the like, if they can stay alive long enough!) then, and only then, will the truth of the mechanisms of collapse come under the eagle eye of the Law.

Until that time we must rely only upon evidence that has already been thoroughly ratified by peer-review or by corroborated eye-witness statements.

All else is mere conjecture.

[Pikey]

Thermate911 and Ian Neal:-

Have you actually seen any of Andrew Johnson's top quality evidence based presentations on 911 yet?

Appreciate that your busy .A yes/no response would suffice.

As regards dividing the UK 911 truth movement that imo was facilitated when www.nineeleven.co.uk was split into 2 sites.

So who allowed that to happen and has it made the movement more effective? What has been achieved since the date of the split now over a year ago?

[ian neal]

Thermate911 and Ian Neal:-

Have you actually seen any of Andrew Johnson's top quality evidence based presentations on 911 yet?

Appreciate that your busy .A yes/no response would suffice.

As regards dividing the UK 911 truth movement that imo was facilitated when www.nineeleven.co.uk was split into 2 sites.

So who allowed that to happen and has it made the movement more effective? What has been achieved since the date of the split now over a year ago?

Yes

and re the split of this site and the disbandment of the UK campaign read the relevant threads to know the who, what, where and why, but I would argue these were mere symptoms of divisions that clearly already existed and not the cause of any splits

[ian neal]

Hi Andrew

My replies in bold italics

Several points to address in your post Ian (from a rainy Wales)
ian neal wrote:
Firstly those calling for a new investigation do not all think as one, so generalisations are dangerous.
Hmm - no mention of those actually doing an investigation and putting it into a legal framework?

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST ... Wood.shtml

My point was about the dangers of generalising along the lines that because DRG attracts criticism because of his support for greater global governance, this somehow has some relevance to other people or groups making the same call. It doesn’t.

Quote:
To me those that believe that Judy Woods is a credible advocate for 9/11 truth are being as naive as DRG when he promotes global governance.

Naive? What about the evidence? And if I am naive for going to ground zero and looking at the half-dismantled banker's trust building etc and helping to get documents submitted to court, then who do you suggest does the investigation, how should it be done and what is the best evidence? Or shall we just debate in on web forums for another 3 or 4 years?

Yes I should have qualified this. There are many advocates of Judy Wood’s work who appear to be saying that this evidence should be the starting point of 9/11 campaigning. There are certainly many advocates, the classic example being Nico Haupt, whose argument basically runs that anyone who chooses to ignore TV fakery, no plane theories and Judy Wood MUST be gatekeepers and shills.

I know the ‘other side’ in that debate was not above criticism and that you and Judy Wood personally always showed respect, but it can’t be overstated the damage that Nico and those employing the same aggressive and childish tactics did in sowing division in the movement and turning people away from respectfully looking at this evidence and the wider case for 911 truth. If he is not an agent, then he is the biggest of useful idiots known to the movement.

To people taking this position, I say this is naive. It all depends on the audience you are speaking to. If the audience is people who having looked at the ‘mainstream evidence’ (if you like the evidence and questions raised by DRG) are already convinced that the official account of 9/11 cannot be the truth, then Judy Wood’s work is an interesting addition that raises important questions.

But if your audience is journalists working for the mainstream media, parliamentarians and the ‘general public’ who are not familiar with even the basics of the 911 truth argument, then IMO you have to start with making that ‘mainstream evidence’ case first. Making the case that the truth has been systematically covered up and a new investigation is required. As a SMALL part of making this case, I personally have no problem flagging up key photographic evidence from Judy Wood’s work such as the spire disintegration, the buckled beams and the flipped cars and pointing out that these raise questions that the official investigations ignore. BUT this would be a small part of making the case for a reinvestigation and not the departure point for me

However if the first thing someone from this audience (let’s call them the unconvinced) hears is snippets of Judy Wood’s evidence, that this evidence is the ‘smoking gun’ that PROVES x, y and z and is then presented with an incoherent and frankly embarrassing DVD of Dr Wood as the most plausible advocate of these theories, they will not be convinced in the vast majority of cases that 911 truth is a cause they can easily understand, support and communicate to other people and they will walk away (or attack you).

In short, if your strategy is to use the call for a reinvestigation as a vehicle to make 9/11 truth a credible issue that demands public attention and support (as part of a wider strategy of waking people up to other hidden truths and high crimes), then you must start where these people are and take them on a journey (or ideally give them the tools to make the journey themselves). The end point may led to zero-point energy, energy cover-ups and the like, but that is not the start of the journey.

Quote:
Firstly the ideas she presents are so far beyond most peoples’ understanding of science, her research will not connect with popular opinion any time soon.


Can you give me examples please?

It is one thing to point to steel work, flipped cars and mysteriously disintegrating spires and say this is strange, I can’t explain this and neither can the authorities and another thing to say this proves that hidden energy technologies were used to cause this. If the argument rests on understanding these ‘hidden energy technologies’ then this is where you will lose 99% of your audience since most people I speak to have never heard of Tesla, zero point energy or the Hutchinson effect and I have yet to hear or read a succinct explanation of these technologies that a lay person could use to get their heads around this stuff. That is not surprising but it does undermine the effectiveness of the argument.

This has not been my experience at all. As I have said here before, and elsewhere, everyone I talk to knows which way up a car normally is and they are most intrigued to hear about Hurricane Erin being closest to NYC on 911. They have absloutely no problems accepting these things as real. And why do you feel it necessary to go into this level of criticism on this thread, which was about DRG. Just because Pikey mentioned Dr Wood and my name briefly? OK, right.

It was an error to mention on Judy Wood in my post, since my main criticism was of the article Pikey linked to that attacked DRG and through that attacked those calling for a new investigation. It is a matter of fact those promoting this argument (and like I say there is nothing new in the article) also usually support Judy Wood’s work and more importantly the bullsh1t antics of Nico Haupt, so that is why I made this connection.

But this distracts from my main points: which were (1)
to defend the strategy of calling for a new investigation and using mainstream arguments (along the lines that DRG presents) to support this case and (2) that this strategy is one strategy amongst many. I see no need for the author to attack the strategy of calling for a new investigation just because he already knows ‘9/11 was an inside job’ or because he believes any new investigation will be a whitewash. He may find the process of calling for a new investigation (or holding a ‘conference’ for MEPs, etc.) may open up doors that would otherwise be closed.

His basic argument that those of us pursuing this strategy are mere dupes and puppets of the NWO is nonsense and so typical of the flawed logic used by those who promote these suspicions.

Quote:
Secondly Judy Woods is a really bad public presenter of science. I’ve watched her DVD presentations and I guarantee that a vast majority of her academic peers would agree with me that the way she presents her arguments in a lecture format is very poor indeed (and that’s being kind).

Goodness - so the actual evidence doesn't matter then? It's all to do with packaging and presentation is it?

In terms of winning public support, I’m afraid the answer is YES presentation over substance does matter. If it was just about evidence we would have won a long time ago

Well, try this for size then. In any case, it's Dr Judy Wood not "Judy Woods".

Part 1

Link

Part 2

Link

Quote:
As some will know I’m involved in www.reinvestigate911.org. The fact that I support a reinvestigation does not mean that hold the views Mr Jarvie attributes to me.


So what views do you hold? What is the most compelling evidence?

I have written enough stuff on this board for people to know this if they are that interested

What happened?

In broad terms the evidence leads me to believe 9/11 was a false flag operation involving amongst others the higher echelons of the White House and military and there is a systematic cover-up by our political leaders, intelligence services and mainstream media both in this country and globally. I have shared my opinions on many different aspects of the evidence but I don’t feel the need to set out in great detail what I believe did and did not happen.

Have you got a research-based website of your own?

No

Who should head up the investigation, or are you happy to leave all these decisions to someone else?

Someone of demonstrable integrity, independence and intelligence who would command widespread public confidence. A new investigation worth our support would only happen in the event of MASSIVE public support from a public that by this stage would be hugely sceptical of the official version. I would probably be happy with someone who wins the support of this sceptical public and who wins the confidence of family campaigners. Although even if we are instrumental in bringing about a new investigation, I’m not naive enough to think it will be my decision and I would only have marginal influence.

Are you happy that Niel's Harrit ignores 9/11 evidence and what he has posted is derivative of the research of Steven E Jones and neither Harrit, Jones or their group have put their evidence in a legal framework?

I haven’t read his research. I’m happy to flag up that there is this Professor with a long history of peer reviewed research who is raising these doubts about the towers collapse based on his analysis of the chemical composition of the dust and to use this along with the questions Judy Wood raises about the dust to call on the authorities to reopen their investigation. It is up to Niel’s to decide whether a legal route would be useful.

Quote:
Finally I notice that DRG is a ‘key team member’ of Fred Burks’ site

http://www.wanttoknow.info/aboutus

A website that’s not afraid to tackle subjects like media control, energy cover-ups and mind control. Hmmm.

Here we are partly in agreement - indeed, I wrote about Fred Burks' role in the break up of the Scholars group over 2 years ago.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... ontent&tas k=view&id=28&Itemid=60

I've learned a lot since then - and put some of it in a 9/11 related court filed affidavit. Seemed like a more direct way of getting a new investigation going.

Quite possibly Fred Burks’ behaviour with regards to the scholars website wasn’t good. I don’t know. But I like his website. My point was that whilst DRG is perhaps overly shy of talking about other controversial issues, he is happy to be associated with a website that covers mind control, media manipulation and energy cover-ups, which undermines Jarvie’s argument that he is a gatekeeper.

FUnny old world really.

Indeed it is. Here is something to brighten all our days

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ayler.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... article.do

Best wishes

Ian

Yours naively,

Andrew

[fish5133]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ayler.html


Not very convincing but not a bad pair of legs.


whilst David Shayler is playing at Christ and Delores he is probably safe from MI5/MI6

Very clever David, I tip my hat to you.

[Thermate911]

Thermate911 and Ian Neal:-

Have you actually seen any of Andrew Johnson's top quality evidence based presentations on 911 yet?

Appreciate that your busy .A yes/no response would suffice.

Partly but as I said before, a transcript or better yet, a thorough paper would be far preferable.

[outsider]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ayler.html


Not very convincing but not a bad pair of legs.


whilst David Shayler is playing at Christ and Delores he is probably safe from MI5/MI6

Very clever David, I tip my hat to you.

He should do a double act, with 'Gorgeous' George Galloway.
He looks a treat in his 'Big Brother' costume.

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewto ... c&start=60

(scroll down half page to Sherlock Holmes' post)

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Shaylord's got the messiah angle completely covered.

He's Christ AND Mary Magdalene.

Maybe he that's what he should have called his alter ego...Maggie Dalene.

[outsider]

Welcome aboard, Torsten. A welcome bit of news. Of course he can't win, but the publicity for 9/11 Truth is very welcome.
Pity the Holocaust guy doesn't look at how Israel has assisted genocidal regimes (such as Guatemala under Rios Montt; Carter stopped US arms supplies to Guatemala, due to it's absolutely abominable Human Rights violations, but the US quietlly got Israel to step into the breach).
I have been to the Aushwitz Memorial, and I have no time whatsoever for Holocaust deniers, or those who try to deny the scale of the atrocities; but Israel's leaders have been accused of War Crimes over their recent atrocities in Gaza, by none other than the veteran Jewish MP, Gerald Kauffman. I think most of us agree with that assessment.
Of course, the Holocaust guy has better things to do than look at Israel's activities; he is too busy trying to debunk and smear 9/11 Truth Campaigners. Don't even mention to him 'Dancing Israelis + 9/11 + video'; he should have time for such tosh, already?

[outsider]

@ pikey:

Whilst Dr Griffin does an excellent job of destroying the credibility of the official conspiracy theory of 911 in his books imo there are legitimate concerns that he is there to steer the sheeple away from the truth.

Dr Griffin demands a public investigation but falls short of saying by whom.

I have seen the guy speak and met him and his wife at Conwy Hall in London and do have suspicions, especially when he chooses to ignore evidence offered by top quality highly qualified researchers/investigators the likes of Andrew Johnson, Dr Judy Wood.

Most sane people would applaud him for 'ignoring' the 'evidence' of Johnson & Wood. I cringe every time Wood is mentioned on this Forum.
I won't suggest what she should do with her 'Hutchison Effect', but use your imagination.

[Andrew Johnson]

Ian,

Thanks for your replies. Unfortunately, there are still a few problems I think:

Yes I should have qualified this. There are *many advocates* of Judy Wood’s work who appear to be saying that this evidence should be the starting point of 9/11 campaigning.

Are there? Who are they? I'd love to hear from them! Only about 5 people offered help with the legal submissions we did - and you weren't on that list.

I didn't mention anything about campaigning - I mentioned legal action and evidence and you don't mention either of these above.

There are certainly many advocates, the classic example being Nico Haupt, whose argument basically runs that anyone who chooses to ignore TV fakery, no plane theories and Judy Wood MUST be gatekeepers and shills.

Nico hasn't been involved in the court action, nor has he been involved with Dr Wood's research – so this statement is essentially false. Why are you bringing his name into this Ian? He is a very rude researcher. He has almost no relevance to what I was saying and he is not interested in what we have done.

I know the ‘other side’ in that debate was not above criticism and that you and Judy Wood personally always showed respect, but it can’t be overstated the damage that Nico and those employing the same aggressive and childish tactics did in sowing division in the movement and turning people away from respectfully looking at this evidence and the wider case for 911 truth. If he is not an agent, then he is the biggest of useful idiots known to the movement.

So are you saying that we should "tell off" Nico for being horrible to people? What on earth has this got to do with any of the points I raised? I can't see a legitimate connection myself. It makes no difference to the points I raised whether Nico Haupt is a good guy, an agent, a sleeper, a disinfo artist or a Millwall fan.

To people taking this position, I say this is naive. It all depends on the audience you are speaking to. If the audience is people who having looked at the ‘mainstream evidence’ (if you like the evidence and questions raised by DRG) are already convinced that the official account of 9/11 cannot be the truth, then Judy Wood’s work is an interesting addition that raises important questions.

Oh - you seem to be being slightly more conciliatory since I started posting on here! This doesn't really address any of the points I raised above.

But if your audience is journalists working for the mainstream media, parliamentarians and the ‘general public’ who are not familiar with even the basics of the 911 truth argument, then IMO you have to start with making that ‘mainstream evidence’ case first. Making the case that the truth has been systematically covered up and a new investigation is required. As a SMALL part of making this case, I personally have no problem flagging up key photographic evidence from Judy Wood’s work such as the spire disintegration, the buckled beams and the flipped cars and pointing out that these raise questions that the official investigations ignore. BUT this would be a small part of making the case for a reinvestigation and not the departure point for me.

You have missed several points - if you look here, you will see some “audience reaction”:

http://tinyurl.com/911ftt

You are making generalisations based on no evidence. Also, we're not talking about a "starting point for an investigation" - we are talking about one of which several segments have been completed and legal challenges have already been made to some of those who did the 2005 reports. Haven't you understood this part? Perhaps not...

However if the first thing someone from this audience (let’s call them the unconvinced) hears is snippets of Judy Wood’s evidence, that this evidence is the ‘smoking gun’ that PROVES x, y and z and is then presented with an incoherent and frankly embarrassing DVD of Dr Wood as the most plausible advocate of these theories, they will not be convinced in the vast majority of cases that 911 truth is a cause they can easily understand, support and communicate to other people and they will walk away (or attack you).

Could you name some people (outside the London group) who have reacted this way? It's not really been my experience that this is the case much at all. The bigger problem is ridicule, misquoting and censorship or soft-censorship. This is not my "pronouncement" (as you seem to doing), it is evidenced here:

http://tinyurl.com/911book/ (free download).

On this link, you’ll see more audience reaction to the book as well (and several bits more if you read the introductory pages).

In short, if your strategy is to use the call for a reinvestigation as a vehicle to make 9/11 truth a credible issue that demands public attention and support (as part of a wider strategy of waking people up to other hidden truths and high crimes), then you must start where these people are and take them on a journey (or ideally give them the tools to make the journey themselves). The end point may led to zero-point energy, energy cover-ups and the like, but that is not the start of the journey.

Here's my strategy for you again - working with the available evidence, with a qualified expert and taking it as far as we can in a legal framework. This has been an ongoing strategy I've been involved in for over 2 years. Are you seriously still waiting around for any recognised agency to do something honest? Isn't it clear that isn't going to happen?

Firstly the ideas she presents are so far beyond most peoples’ understanding of science, her research will not connect with popular opinion any time soon.

Can you give me examples please?

It is one thing to point to steel work, flipped cars and mysteriously disintegrating spires and say this is strange, I can’t explain this and neither can the authorities and another thing to say this proves that hidden energy technologies were used to cause this. If the argument rests on understanding these ‘hidden energy technologies’ then this is where you will lose 99% of your audience since most people I speak to have never heard of Tesla, zero point energy or the Hutchinson effect and I have yet to hear or read a succinct explanation of these technologies that a lay person could use to get their heads around this stuff. That is not surprising but it does undermine the effectiveness of the argument.

Hmm - I should've made this clearer. I meant give me some quotes of people you've shown the DVD or other evidence to. But, I am pretty sure you have never shown this to anyone because of your concerns about “the quality of the presentation”. So, I'd make a safe guess you're making another pronouncement here based on no evidence and no actual experience.

And, using the evidence I have linked above (about reaction to the 911 evidence and studies we've compiled) I conclude your prouncement is pretty inaccurate anyway.

It was an error to mention on Judy Wood in my post, since my main criticism was of the article Pikey linked to that attacked DRG and through that attacked those calling for a new investigation. It is a matter of fact those promoting this argument (and like I say there is nothing new in the article) also usually support Judy Wood’s work and more importantly the bullsh1t antics of Nico Haupt, so that is why I made this connection.

But this distracts from my main points: which were (1)
to defend the strategy of calling for a new investigation and using mainstream arguments (along the lines that DRG presents) to support this case and (2) that this strategy is one strategy amongst many. I see no need for the author to attack the strategy of calling for a new investigation just because he already knows ‘9/11 was an inside job’ or because he believes any new investigation will be a whitewash. He may find the process of calling for a new investigation (or holding a ‘conference’ for MEPs, etc.) may open up doors that would otherwise be closed.

His basic argument that those of us pursuing this strategy are mere dupes and puppets of the NWO is nonsense and so typical of the flawed logic used by those who promote these suspicions.

Thanks for admitting your error. Hmmm - more rather vague generalisation.. I get around this by focusing on the actual evidence. It works well.

Anyway, my main point in all of this is it's one thing to *call* for a new investigation (as was being done 3 years and more ago) and another thing to actually do it (in stages) and put it into a legal framework – which is what Dr Wood and Jerry Leaphart have done – and everything is available for public scrutiny.

Going back a step to your earlier post:

Secondly Judy Woods is a really bad public presenter of science. I’ve watched her DVD presentations and I guarantee that a vast majority of her academic peers would agree with me that the way she presents her arguments in a lecture format is very poor indeed (and that’s being kind).

I missed this last time - how on *earth* can you "guarantee that a vast majority of her academic peers would agree with me that the way she presents her arguments in a lecture format is very poor indeed". Have you got e-mails from them saying this? What kind of comment is this?

Goodness - so the actual evidence doesn't matter then? It's all to do with packaging and presentation is it?

In terms of winning public support, I’m afraid the answer is YES presentation over substance does matter. If it was just about evidence we would have won a long time ago

I see - well, if you can help us to package the evidence better - you know, professional quality DVD production etc, that would be great. We thought Sofia Shafquat (who made 9/11 mysteries) might help in that regard. She refused - and instead proposed that Flourine might have dissolved the WTC steel!

Who should head up the investigation, or are you happy to leave all these decisions to someone else?

Someone of demonstrable integrity, independence and intelligence who would command widespread public confidence. A new investigation worth our support would only happen in the event of MASSIVE public support from a public that by this stage would be hugely sceptical of the official version. I would probably be happy with someone who wins the support of this sceptical public and who wins the confidence of family campaigners. Although even if we are instrumental in bringing about a new investigation, I’m not naive enough to think it will be my decision and I would only have marginal influence.

Sorry, but is this (posting below) an example of "demonstrable integrity"?

Quote:
Secondly Judy Woods is a really bad public presenter of science. I’ve watched her DVD presentations and I guarantee that a vast majority of her academic peers would agree with me that the way she presents her arguments in a lecture format is very poor indeed (and that’s being kind).

So…

Are you happy that Niel's Harrit ignores 9/11 evidence and what he has posted is derivative of the research of Steven E Jones and neither Harrit, Jones or their group have put their evidence in a legal framework?

I haven’t read his research. I’m happy to flag up that there is this Professor with a long history of peer reviewed research who is raising these doubts about the towers collapse based on his analysis of the chemical composition of the dust and to use this along with the questions Judy Wood raises about the dust to call on the authorities to reopen their investigation. It is up to Niel’s to decide whether a legal route would be useful.

So you basically don't know much about his Neil’s Harrit’s research (but you *think* it's OK). So how is it that you are happy that it seems OK, but Dr Wood's presentation is "very poor"? Has Neils Harrit made any legally based submissions? Can he explain the evidence? If he cannot, then what hope is there for any investigation being of any use? Will it be “honest” and have “integrity” if it ignores the significant evidence I highlighted above? Or, will the new investigation be packaged in some kind of hybrid “X Factor” type of deal so that it has “mass appeal”? (I am exaggerating to try and make a point about “truth versus popularity”)

Quote:
Finally I notice that DRG is a ‘key team member’ of Fred Burks’ site

http://www.wanttoknow.info/aboutus

A website that’s not afraid to tackle subjects like media control, energy cover-ups and mind control. Hmmm.

Here we are partly in agreement - indeed, I wrote about Fred Burks' role in the break up of the Scholars group over 2 years ago.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... ontent&tas k=view&id=28&Itemid=60

I've learned a lot since then - and put some of it in a 9/11 related court filed affidavit. Seemed like a more direct way of getting a new investigation going.

Quite possibly Fred Burks’ behaviour with regards to the scholars website wasn’t good. I don’t know. But I like his website.

I see - again you are not checking evidence when it is flagged up then? That's OK - the pattern is already pretty clear to me.

FUnny old world really.

Indeed it is. Here is something to brighten all our days

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ayler.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... article.do

And the point of linking that article is...? Actually, the timing of what happened to David Shayler over the last 2 years (and more) is rather peculiar if you study it. It certainly didn’t brighten my day either.

Anyway Ian, thanks for putting a couple more nails in the coffin for me. Your time spent in “banging them down” is appreciated. It’s been very useful to fully determine your views on evidence, investigation etc.

[TorsteinViddal]

Thanks for the warm words of welcome, Pikey, Ian and Outsider, and thanks for the free book, Andrew.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are certain rules as to who can nominate. I linked to them and to a PDF document of the most likely names behind this year's Nobel nomination.

Going on to my friend to the south, the Danish nanochemist Niels Harrit, I've known him for quite some time, since I interviewed him about 9/11 in April of 2007.

This May we invited Niels Harrit to the biggest Nordic Literature Festival at Lillehammer north of Oslo, as this year's festival theme was 'Truth'. Niels is a loving, trustworthy and very friendly guy who learnt about the tower demolitions from a DVD sent anonymously to his girlfriend. We being 9/11 Truth Norway.

It's certainly not our fault that the local Lillehammer newspaper printed a story about Harrit's lecture, telling the readers to go 15 kilometers into the woods to experience Niels Harrit, instead of just down to the hotel we'd booked in the city center. That's just the regular censorship and harassment we've come to expect from the mainstream media.

As for David Ray Griffin, we met and shook hands at the lecture on May 14th at the Oslo Literature House, and David was also the first guy who made me absolutely sure there was real hard evidence to the 9/11 Truth story, as I read his New Pearl Harbor back in 2004.

I've seen the allegations years ago that he's an evil globalist, but people say many things, and you gotta admit that a UN, EU or ICC criminal investigation of the 9/11 crimes would at least raise the issue to a new level of critical mass, that would make the massive MSM coverup look more guilty in the eyes of the ordinary man.

In my view, you lot should try to get some British MSM coverage for the thing this thread is about - the fact that David Ray Griffin AND the 9/11 Truth Movement are indeed formally nominated candidates for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Maybe that will lead somewhere, you cannot find out if you do not try.

I leave you with some Norwegian hiphop

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i54yMhOf-FA[/youtube]

[Pikey]

Well done with the 911 truth activism Torstein and thanx for the link.

IMO the only chance for 911 truth to be exposed is from the bottom of the pyramid upwards. Michael Meacher (the Labour MP who wrote the forward in DRGs first 911 book TNPH) told me and Justin at a public meeting in Manchester back in 2007 that MPs would not be able to do anything until there was a sufficient demand for action from the public which seriously threatened the continuing existence of the status quo.

you gotta admit that a UN, EU or ICC criminal investigation of the 9/11 crimes would at least raise the issue to a new level of critical mass, that would make the massive MSM coverup look more guilty in the eyes of the ordinary man

Problem with that is imo that those behind orchestrating 911 are responsible for creating these organisations..

Stick to grassroots activism, regular local screenings of well researched truth dvds and raising public activism and winning over hearts and minds in the info wars battle.

United we have a chance; divided forget it.

Always look out for the infiltrators and watchers (they are on this site and at the core of the UK 911 truth movement) and dont allow them to let you lose focus of the purpose you joined the movement as well as your aims and objectives.

[Andrew Johnson]

This May we invited Niels Harrit to the biggest Nordic Literature Festival at Lillehammer north of Oslo, as this year's festival theme was 'Truth'. Niels is a loving, trustworthy and very friendly guy who learnt about the tower demolitions from a DVD sent anonymously to his girlfriend. We being 9/11 Truth Norway.

Torstein, thanks for the info - yes, it's good to try and attract attention to 9/11 issues - I've been doing this since Sept 2004 - almost 5 years now.

I have not met Mr Harrit, but did exchange e-mails with him last summer. Unfortunately, in the e-mail exchange he was not willing to discuss certain 9/11 evidence in any detail - indeed, he was quite dismissive of it. Contact me on ad.johnson@ntlworld.com for further information.

Sadly, the paper he has published with others has some significant problems and raises questions about the motives for it being published - both at the time and in the place it was. here is a list of questions I compiled for those thinking about that "Active Thermitic Compounds" paper, and the history behind it.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60

[outsider]

This May we invited Niels Harrit to the biggest Nordic Literature Festival at Lillehammer north of Oslo, as this year's festival theme was 'Truth'. Niels is a loving, trustworthy and very friendly guy who learnt about the tower demolitions from a DVD sent anonymously to his girlfriend. We being 9/11 Truth Norway.

Torstein, thanks for the info - yes, it's good to try and attract attention to 9/11 issues - I've been doing this since Sept 2004 - almost 5 years now.

I have not met Mr Harrit, but did exchange e-mails with him last summer. Unfortunately, in the e-mail exchange he was not willing to discuss certain 9/11 evidence in any detail - indeed, he was quite dismissive of it. Contact me on ad.johnson@ntlworld.com for further information.

Sadly, the paper he has published with others has some significant problems and raises questions about the motives for it being published - both at the time and in the place it was. here is a list of questions I compiled for those thinking about that "Active Thermitic Compounds" paper, and the history behind it.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60

ONE SUSPECTS THE 'INFO' NIELS REFUSED TO DISCUSS IS REGARDING THE 'BEAM WEAPON THEORY'. If so, that is one more feather in his hat.
One day, one of you will demonstrate the 'Hutchison Effect' in front of a public meeting; on that day, I'm sure you will have no trouble getting people to look seriously at your theory. Till then, I respectfully suggest people would be better off playing tiddly-winks than wasting time with your 'Theory'.