9 biggest 9/11 stories of 2011: old fights and new directions - 9/11 Scholars Forum2024-03-28T20:44:01Zhttp://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/9-biggest-9-11-stories-of-2011-old-fights-and-new-directions?commentId=3488444%3AComment%3A45576&feed=yes&xn_auth=noOur own concensus panel! Now…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-12-31:3488444:Comment:455762011-12-31T23:23:31.495ZJeannon Kraljhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>Our own concensus panel! Now there's an idea! Let's go for it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Blessing to you and all for healthy, happy and prosperous new year.</p>
<p>Our own concensus panel! Now there's an idea! Let's go for it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Blessing to you and all for healthy, happy and prosperous new year.</p> We need our own consensus pan…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-12-31:3488444:Comment:454612011-12-31T15:55:05.587ZShallel Octaviahttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/Shallel
<p>We need our own consensus panel, Jeannon, may we post some of our best points here, or would it be better as a new discussion?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Gage is endorsing Jeff Hill? That's rich!</p>
<p></p>
<p>Blessings and Happy New Year,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Sha</p>
<p>We need our own consensus panel, Jeannon, may we post some of our best points here, or would it be better as a new discussion?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Gage is endorsing Jeff Hill? That's rich!</p>
<p></p>
<p>Blessings and Happy New Year,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Sha</p> "Gage’s statement endorsed th…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-12-31:3488444:Comment:452552011-12-31T13:49:08.186ZThoth IIhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/ThothII
<p>"<span>Gage’s statement endorsed the research of such dubious names as Chris Sarns, Victoria Ashley, Jim Hoffman, Frank Legge, Warren Stutt, Jeff Hill, and Gregg Roberts. In doing so, he threw his weight behind the idea that we can’t prove a 757 </span><em>didn’t</em><span> hit the Pentagon and that one probably did. He would have been much better to stay out of the Pentagon discussion altogether. The cause and Gage’s credibility have…</span></p>
<p>"<span>Gage’s statement endorsed the research of such dubious names as Chris Sarns, Victoria Ashley, Jim Hoffman, Frank Legge, Warren Stutt, Jeff Hill, and Gregg Roberts. In doing so, he threw his weight behind the idea that we can’t prove a 757 </span><em>didn’t</em><span> hit the Pentagon and that one probably did. He would have been much better to stay out of the Pentagon discussion altogether. The cause and Gage’s credibility have suffered."</span></p>
<p><span><br/></span></p>
<p><span>Yes we can. Because both April Gallop and Jamie McIntyre (who was probably pushed out at CNN) reported NO debris.</span></p>
<p><span><br/></span></p>
<p><span>"</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">And it happened just in time for the 10<sup>th</sup> anniversary commemorations of 9/11. How convenient.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">And Barack Obama, clearly the darling of big money and the global elite, got the credit for this momentous accomplishment."</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><br/></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">Correct, to keep it keeping on. They're doing the same at JFK 50th except of course much smaller scale. </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><br/></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3">"<span>What she didn’t know when she first launched the suit was that it would ultimately be thrown out of court on appeal by Judge John M. Walker, a cousin of George W. Bush. As you’d expect, the mainstream media ignored the story (with the exception of CNBC). Gallop’s lawyer, William Veale, tried unsuccessfully to get Walker disqualified from the case."</span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span><br/></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span>yes, this is why the oligarchy is successful. The power structure works in cohoots, the oldest trick since biblical days to maintain control of the masses; they who controlled the knowledge controlled the power. It ain't nothing new under the sun. </span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span><br/></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span>"<span>The idea was to have expert “witnesses” who would present compelling evidence to a trio of moderators refuting the 9/11 official story. It was decided that only the “least controversial” evidence would be considered because it would more likely lead to consensus. This meant no invitation to CIT or to native Torontonian Barrie Zwicker, a leading member of the Truth movement and avid CIT supporter"</span></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span><span><br/></span></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span><span>correct control the opposition as they say; only cherry pick what you want the public to know to defuse their energy. Joe sixpack always goes home and says ok, that's enough. </span></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span><span><br/></span></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span><span>"<span>In early September the formation of the 9/11 Consensus Panel was announced. It is an expert panel of academics, scientists, pilots, journalists, and other prominent members of the 9/11 Truth movement. The group was created to assemble a list of points that have achieved consensus status by virtue of receiving the approval of 85% of the panel."</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span><span><span><br/></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span><span><span>I guess I'm a purist and consensus don't cut it; the scientific method must be followed; so I view truth as independent of humans, though of course they have to be involved. Trouble with consensus is they are subject to the same old same old of people clumping together based on cult of personalities. I see that all the time everyday. </span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span><span><span><br/></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span><span><span>"<span> This would allow voters in a given state to vote on whether or not they want a new investigation into 9/11 to be initiated."</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span><span><span><span><br/></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><span><span><span><span>I'm always leary of new investigations because meet the new boss, same as the old boss. For example, in JFK, they had at least 3 new investigations after warren commission but both had intel op plants in them to derail them. </span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3"><br/></span></p>
<p><font size="3"><br/></font></p> Very nice, Jeannon. Keep up…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-12-31:3488444:Comment:452522011-12-31T02:25:13.795ZJames H. Fetzerhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JamesHFetzer
<p>Very nice, Jeannon. Keep up the great work. It is wonderful to see you here. I appreciate your good work. Best, Jim</p>
<p>Very nice, Jeannon. Keep up the great work. It is wonderful to see you here. I appreciate your good work. Best, Jim</p>