Disrupting Speeches, Events, etc.
Talk 9/11 Truth
This group has been archived. Find out more.
Join LibraryThing to post.
2turbosaab
Apologies for the delayed response, I haven't been watching the LT boards very closely...
I find such interruptions inappropriate and distasteful, and I don't see how this strategy would cause anyone to seriously consider the message.
On the other hand, I'm quite wary of the groupthink "movement" mentality and should say that these disruptive individuals don't represent everyone who questions the official 9/11 story.
I find such interruptions inappropriate and distasteful, and I don't see how this strategy would cause anyone to seriously consider the message.
On the other hand, I'm quite wary of the groupthink "movement" mentality and should say that these disruptive individuals don't represent everyone who questions the official 9/11 story.
4turbosaab
People may laugh at "9/11 truthers", the loosely organized fringe group, but I think most are actually open to a thoughtful and reasoned arguement that perhaps, at the very least, we still don't know the whole story of what happened on 9/11, and some of what we have been told is wrong.
For me, the key is that it's difficult for an individual to determine, with any degree of certainty, what really happened. Assuming one questions the official account (which, for me, is the easiest part, since it is full of holes and contradictions), where does that lead? Coverup or shoddy investigative work? If coverup, was it after the fact or did they "let it happen"?
With that in mind, "Investigate 9/11" strikes me as a potentially more effective message than "9/11 was a inside job". And again I'd think civil discourse would be more effective than rudeness. I don't see this opinion as necessarily inconsistant - what really happened, and what should be done about it, are two different questions.
For me, the key is that it's difficult for an individual to determine, with any degree of certainty, what really happened. Assuming one questions the official account (which, for me, is the easiest part, since it is full of holes and contradictions), where does that lead? Coverup or shoddy investigative work? If coverup, was it after the fact or did they "let it happen"?
With that in mind, "Investigate 9/11" strikes me as a potentially more effective message than "9/11 was a inside job". And again I'd think civil discourse would be more effective than rudeness. I don't see this opinion as necessarily inconsistant - what really happened, and what should be done about it, are two different questions.
