9/11 truthers need to risk challenging ALL elements of the official story

By Craig McKee

When it came to big lies, Adolph Hitler was the expert. But when he said that it’s easier to get people to believe a big lie than a small one, he was telling the truth.

This is the strategy that was employed on September 11, 2001.

To get to the truth, I believe that we need to know everything about how this massive illusion was perpetrated that day. It was a big lie – bigger than most of us are willing to imagine. It was so enormous and so complex that most 9/11 truthers feel the need to boil it down to a manageable size to make the case that it was indeed an inside job. We feel we need to keep the scope of the deception small or risk alienating those who might believe us.

But there’s a problem with this. After a decade, the strategy has fallen short because it puts too many eggs in one basket. Our fear of being ridiculed if we discuss controversial 9/11 subjects has narrowed our focus to the point that the whole movement is prepared to rise or fall on our ability to convince the world that the twin towers were intentionally demolished.
Of course, there is almost unanimous agreement within the Truth movement that the towers were indeed brought down by means other than planes and jet fuel. But that virtual unanimity has still not led to the breakthrough that we all seek.

There aren’t any prime time specials on network TV about the controlled demolition of the towers, and there aren’t any major exposés in the New York Times or the Washington Post about how the 9/11 official story is a web of lies.

The best we’ve done in recent months was getting Geraldo Rivera to admit on Fox News that the destruction of Building 7 looked like a controlled demolition. Even with this suspicion, Rivera rejects the possibility that the U.S. government was involved. (Having said this, I think the Building What? campaign in New York is an excellent strategy because its aim is simply to get an investigation into the destruction of that one building – a foot-in-the-door approach.)

The problem with sticking only with explosives, thermite, and the towers is that you won’t convince the world that they should revise their conclusions about 9/11 because one element of the official story is suspect. Why would one element of the story be a deception and not the rest? It doesn’t make sense. The fact is that ALL OF THE OFFICIAL STORY IS AN ILLUSION. And we shouldn’t be afraid to say so.

Now I do understand the risk of getting behind a controversial theory only to have it destroyed later. That’s why I am cautious about doing so. But I don’t believe this should eliminate the debate in advance. If someone advances a theory – like Dr. Judy Wood suggesting the use of directed energy weapons, for example – then the theory will stand or fall on its merits.

(For the rest of this story, go to (http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com)