Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by ipsedixit
I guess that's a great question we can all ask ourselves.
What would you do if Riggle admitted he was harley guy?
I don't think anyone will admit to being Harley Man, unless there is overwhelming evidence for it.
I view the whole 9/11 question from the perspective of judicial processes. Every piece of evidence uncovered by anyone in any area of 9/11
investigation is considered in the light of it's utility in a civil or criminal prosecution. The unmasking of Harley Man would have to be connected
to other evidence developed.
So call it a demand for social justice, call it a peace/political movement, call it a mass awakening, or call it whatever you want, but I think
that anyone who understands the gravity of this information should want to do something about it.
I agree but, having said that, I think that one of the problems with the truth movement has been a failure to focus on areas where much greater
pressure could have been brought on the Bush administration. There should have been much more of an effort to ensure that due process was followed in
numerous instances post 9/11 and in the lead up to the overseas wars. Bush was much rougher on due process than he was on the constitution.
But we have to get serious and we have to FOCUS on the slam dunk info if we want to move forward and be productive.
I agree, but it would seem that what is developing is happening across a wide front. No-one is focussing along the lines that you suggest or that I
would have liked to see from day one. Instead a sort of mass of information is developing and starting to approach "critical mass".
I was listening to Linda Moulton Howe on C2CAM last night and she reported on another scholarly paper written by a Danish scientist on nano-thermitic
dust at the WTC on 9/11. The paper is important, but so is the fact that Ms. Howe is looking into these matters.
It is very telling when someone like that relates how she telephoned NIST to ask questions about their 9/11 work and was hung up on after asking them
how many people worked on that investigation, and that was her first question!
David Letterman telling Bill O'Reilly that a congressman, in conversation with Letterman, opined that Bush should be arrested and put on trial for
war crimes, also says something about "critical mass."
There has also been at least one television program to come out recently, featuring, in a non-mocking way, a character who might be called a
In 2006 CBC television interviewed one of the Popular Science guys on the question of 9/11 and although the interview style was not confrontational
the questions asked by the interviewer were very comprehensive and revealed a detailed awareness of truther perspectives all across the 9/11 board. To
me it says there is awareness and sympathy among mainstream journalists. They know the story, but are being restrained from telling it.
Your solid work, while it may not be the sort of thing you convict John Gotti with, helps to keep the core of the reactor active. Harley Man has
created a stir, even unidentified. Identifying him, particularly if he turns out to be a well known individual can help to maintain public interest in
the story and possibly raise public ire a little.
There isn't going to be a slam dunk, but eventually there might be a dangerous amount of critical outrage among the public. That's why I don't
agree with your next statement.
Speculation keeps us mired in debate. We have enough evidence to progress out of that phase.
I think we have to keep building mass and moving the evidence into so-called "legitimate venues."
[edit on 1-5-2009 by ipsedixit]