Reply to “Patrick from Cincinnati”

I posted a comment on the “Screw Loose Change” blog calling attention to my post about “Screw Loose Change” dissing the NYC-CAN.

I got some rather rude replies which I won’t discuss, except to mention that Pat Curley needs to remind his fans again to clean up their “potty mouth,” as he and/or James have put it in the past.

Now to some more substantive replies, by one “Patrick from Cincinnati”:

“Screw Loose Change” dissing the NYC-CAN ballot initiative

Screw Loose Change has been pouring scorn (here
and here) on NYC-CAN’s ballot initiative. The SLC folks assume that the NYC government’s legal challenges are valid and irrefutable, and that we stupid “troofers” just didn’t even bother to look at the election law, or hire a lawyer.

New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative: Any objections, please voice them NOW!

There has been some controversy about the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative in various 9/11 Truth forums. See, for example, the discussion about it in this thread in the Truth Action forum and in 911blogger threads linked there. Some people are concerned about who the named commissioners are, for example.

The petition for the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative is now being re-written, and it will be starting over very soon. That being the case, NOW is the time to voice your objections, if any.

Some of the many successes of grassroots political movements

Yesterday I tried doing a street action (tabling with petition, etc.) in Jackson Heights (Queens), where, it seems, nearly everyone believes that 9/11 was an inside job. But what most people there apparently don’t believe is that there is any point whatsoever to any kind of political action.

So, I’ve written up a sign containing the following, which I will attach to my table when I go out tomorrow:

Why we need a new investigation of 9/11 – first draft of a leaflet

Below is a draft of a leaflet I plan to distribute as part of my own personal street activism on behalf of the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative. The leaflet will be on two sides of a 5.5″ x 8/5″ sheet of paper.

What happened in my life on 9/11/2001

On 9/11/2001, I had a day off from work and had planned to run an errand down to the vicinity of the WTC. Specifically I had planned an errand to 30 West Broadway, the building that was irreparably damaged by the collapse of WTC 7.

Luckily for me, I was too tired and went back to sleep. I didn’t even realize that anything unusual was happening until around noon, when I got an email which mentioned that schools had been closed because of “the tragic events of this morning.” So I turned on the radio to find out what was going on.

I didn’t lose any loved ones, but a friend of mine did. Soon afterward, he moved out of the city because he couldn’t stand to live here anymore.

Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please

On the Truth Action board, we’ve been having an interesting discussion about the evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC buildings, starting on this page.

There is disagreement about how sure we should be about the idea that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were demolished with explosives and/or thermite. Some, including YT, are 100% sure, while others, such as John Doraemi and Nicholas, believe that it’s likely but not 100% proven. I’m in the latter camp, though not to quite the same extent as John and Nicholas. On the next page of the above Truth Action thread, I voiced some of my own opinions about the need for caution in how we present the case for controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. Below, I’ll voice more of my thoughts on this matter.

In my opinion, we shouldn’t be claiming that the WTC buildings definitely were demolished with explosives and/or thermite. Instead, our claim should be that there’s enough evidence for demolition to warrant a serious and truly independent investigation with subpoena power.

Furthermore, we need to be careful about how we argue for the likelihood of demolition. We need to make sure our arguments are sound; otherwise we risk discrediting ourselves.

To me it seems that a lot of people in the 9/11 Truth movement have overstated the case for demolition and have used some faulty arguments (as well as some good arguments) for the likelihood of demolition. Below is my assessment of various arguments that I’ve seen used:

Mike Gravel

On Tuesday I attended a press conference held by Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Gravel, on the steps of City Hall here in New York City. He spoke mainly about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, about which we were originally warned by Dwight Eisenhower. I totally agree with him about the dangers of the military-industrial complex.

I and several other people from New York 9/11 Truth were there because he was going to sign a petition having to do with health care for the first responders. However, at the press conference, not many questions were asked about the first responders. Not sure why. Perhaps the relevant people just didn’t show up?

Anyhow, Gravel is the only presidential candidate I’m aware of who doesn’t mind holding a press conference with a few people in the background wearing T-shirts that say “Investigate 9/11.” A while back, I recall seeing an announcement urging people in the 9/11 Truth movement to attend a rally in support of Ron Paul, but specifically asking us not to wear any clothing with a mention of 9/11.

Below is more info about Mike Gravel:

First post

This blog will eventually discuss various different political issues of interest to New Yorkers, including local, national, and world issues. For now I’ll be focussing mainly on 9/11-related issues.