9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

From Ian Fantom (ian@fantom.org.uk)

*How social movements are reduced to tea and crumpets*

So what are the problems and difficulties of the 9/11 truth movement, and
have there been attempts to silence us? That question was put to Professor
Jim Fetzer in an interview appearing in Iran Review on 13 September on the
Vancouver Hearings, which he organised earlier this year. He replied that
the most serious problems have arisen from conflicts internal to the
movement coming from various factions which have adopted negative or even
hostile attitudes towards others, mentioning some in London and in the US
(http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/James-H-Fetzer-Mossad-P...).
A more detailed account had appeared the previous day on the Veterans
Today website, headed '9/11 Truth will out: Vancouver Hearings II'
(http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012-09-12/911-truth-will-out-the-vanc...).
He details some of the correspondence with Ian Henshall of 'Reinvestigate
9/11' and concludes that "he is not serious about 9/11 Truth but prefers to
run a social club where 9/11 can be discussed over tea and crumpets!". I
reached the same conclusion shortly after it had been set up, having
recognised the symptoms from the Esperanto movement in the UK. It became
clear that this a deliberate policy, which they had turned into a
'philosophy' called 'Rauxmismo'. The president was also the president of
the Simplified Spelling Society, and he did exactly the same thing there.
It seems it's a common technique for neutralising any movement, and so I've
been extending the term 'raumism' to the neutralisation of any movement by
that technique. Jim Fetzer commented: "I find it difficult to believe that
anyone takes 'Reinvestigate 9/11' seriously". Well, you have to look at
Conformity Theory to start to understand that, as I did when the members of
the Esperanto association believed that the capital had been decreasing
when the figures showed it had been increasing. All the Raumists have to do
is to form an authoritative elite, and keep smiling, and then find some
excuse to vilify anyone who asks dangerous questions. Virtually everyone
rallies round out of tribal loyalty. That's how they maintain a façade of
democracy.

It's not easy to tackle the Raumists; any free discussion will be
deflected or sabotaged, and in my case it proved impossible to get any sort
of action group of more that a couple of people without eventually finding
it was being undermined from within. Any pot of gold is in danger of being
blocked. When people start to latch on to what is happening the fake elite
can no longer maintain the façade of democracy, and so they resort to
blatent censorship. So it's not difficult to see why Iran's Press TV was
banned in the EU and replaced by a pro-NATO Iranian station, as Tony
Gosling explains on Russia Today ('Anti-Tehran TV launches as Iran state
media gets EU boot', 25 October:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCISdmOjGhI). Nor is it difficult to see why
Iran should have launched its own satelite
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7866357.stm).

*'9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out': new film goes viral*

However, in the US the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have made a
significant breakthrough. In August their new film '9/11: Explosive
Evidence – Experts Speak Out'
made its broadcast TV premiere on Colorado Public Television (CPT12). Then
on 11 September the film became the "most watched and most shared video on
PBS Online, and held the top spot for over a week. The webpage for the
broadcast received more hits than any programme page in its
(http://digitaljournal.com/article332972).  The film may be viewed online
on their website (http://video/cpt12.org/video/2270078138). PBS reaches
nearly 123 million people through television, and more than 21 million
people online each month (http://www.pbs.org/about/corporate-information).

So when will the BBC broadcast such material? Cabinet minister Vince Cable
made a point in BBC 1's Question Time on 26 October: "[The BBC] is damaged,
but not fatally, but I would say in its defence: 'What other media
organisation in the world would put out a programme attacking itself, which
is what it did in the Panorama programme …"
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/player/episode/b01nmd1z/sign/Question_Time_25_...
makes a good point. The BBC was set up that way. That doesn't mean that
there is no abuse of power by the hierarchy. Nor does it mean that there is
no undue influence from outside bodies, such as the security services and
financial corporations. Jeremy Paxman's sudden abandonment of a tie in
Newsnight suggests he is standing up to such a hierarchy, whereas no
informed person could doubt that the BBC's Conspiracy Files team presents
distortions and lies in order to support the Establishment's version of
events. The banning of Press TV undermines any pretence of political
neutrality by the Establishment. But the structure of the BBC, even if it
is corrupted, gives me some hope of making a breakthrough like that on PBS.

Views: 175

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

© 2017   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service