Patriots Question 9/11

This slide was added in the January 2008 slideshow. It replaced a reference to the 9/11 Truth Statement. It was deleted in the May 2008 slideshow for reasons unknown.

Argument ad Populum

This slide was used to add another layer to Gage's ongoing argument ad populum. Because all of these people have questions, you should too!

This is a common tactic in persuasive presentations. In order to persuade, you have to make your listener aware of a felt need. Having lots of important people ask questions makes an individual feel left out, especially if you respect the important people asking the question.

This is ironic when it comes to the Truth Movement. They are standing up against the crowd in their beliefs, but they still feel the need to have important people to hide behind.

That makes this an interesting twist on the ad populum argument. The 9/11 Truth Movement wants numbers, but not too many. At the end of the slideshow, Gage will be using a picture of David and Goliath, and if truth be told, the Truth Movement loves their status as underdogs. It gives them a personal sense of integrity and honor. They stand against the sheep, and yet they also crave the attention of the many. Therefore any sizable group they can claim as part of their cause is also just as apt to show up in their argumentation for acceptance.

Many people have questions about the events of 9/11. I have questions about the events of 9/11. And as the compilers of this website show, there are lots of prominent people, from engineers to celebrities, that have questions. In no way does this mean that all these people share any degree of the questions being asked by AE911Truth.

Ask Questions, Recognize Answers

The problem is not questioning 9/11, but rejecting answers that are available and based on the clear and sufficient evidence of the day. Many questions raised by Gage and by most people on these lists have answers. When the best answers don't fit our politics, we have no legitimate right to reject those answers and search for more conducive ones.

The Wide Range of Questions

Furthermore, the way this website chooses to group people together on the same list is amazing! Take the list that is currently up on the front page (21 February 2008) - 120+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials. The first person in the list is Wesley Clark. What's the extent of his questioning of 9/11?

I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works. We need Congress to do its job. We need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch. ... We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time.

The misuse of intelligence information before 9/11 is all that Clark mentions. Nothing about controlled demolitions, nothing about planning the attacks at all.

In fact, the misuse of intelligence point is probably about the ramping up to the war in Iraq and not 9/11 at all. Clark also mentions the Abramoff scandal and the warrantless wiretapping issue. For someone trying to get Democrats elected in 2006 (the context of Clark's statement here), not mentioning intelligence gaffes in the pre-war phase would be an incredible mistake.

Bottom line: we have no real information about what Clark means by "finishing the investigation into 9/11" other than a statement made as a partisan Democrat in an election year. Yet there he is, front and center in this list of military officials "questioning 9/11."

Clark is then followed by Major General Alfred Stubblebine. What are Stubblebine's questions?

One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army's Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, "The plane does not fit in that hole". So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?

Stubblebine is actually quite a character. He was heavily involved in the Pentagon's psychic experiments and once walked into a wall because he thought he could force his atoms between the atoms of the wall solely with the power of his mind.

Placing these two individuals together as equal questioners of 9/11 is a self-evident farce.

Another example of this is Dr. James Quintiere, the former head of NIST's Fire Science Division, who is listed further down the page. Dr. Quintieri has expressly disavowed any notion of controlled demolition. His questioning of the NIST final report is rooted in his scientific judgment that the fireproofing was not stripped off as NIST claimed and that the fires burned hot enough to overwhelm the fireproofing. This theory is no friend to the likes of Richard Gage and his fellow controlled demolition advocates.

This website irresponsibly lumps anyone who has ever breathed a syllable of dissent against what the Truth Movement calls the "Official Story." There is no discernment between balanced, well-based reasoning and the reverie of professional fantasists.

The responsible questioners have everything to lose by this improper association, and the irresponsible have everything to gain. Clearly the purpose of this website is to use rational people as a human shield for some of the most irrational and outrageous theories that the 9/11 Truth Movement can think of.

These questions should be accepted or rejected based on the correct evaluation of evidence behind the questions and not the numbers of people who ask them. Should one person uncover real, solid evidence, they could stand against the multitudes who think differently. And should thousands of people believe something insane, their numbers will not make the irrational rational.

Let us evaluate the evidence. It doesn't matter how many people believe something if that belief is false.

Navigation

Slideshow Date	Previous Slide		Current Slide		Next Slide
May 2008:	Slide 4	<	Excluded	>	Slide 5
March 2008:	Slide 8	<	Slide 9	>	Slides 10-12
January 2008:	Slide 10	<	Slide 11	>	Slides 12-14
September 2007:	Slide 7	<	Not Present	>	Slides 8/9