Truthers need a really good PR Person [updated]Submitted by OctoBox on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 16:00
[update#1 -- just snipped off a bit of the title]
[update#2 -- I'm not a Truther or Denier -- Not here to debate in this post on anything OTHER THAN media strategy and approach]
I'm still processing what was presented by Richard Gauge.
To me Build #7 (the pancaking, the free-fall, never hit by a plane, cool fire temperatures, videos of what would seem officers-fireman-news anchor all knowing the building was going to come down prior to it falling) -- for me Build #7, the science, based on the above alone is enough to warrant a public investigation.
If it was "pulled" -- then it stands as insurance fraud first-and-foremost. Even worse, however, is the implication around the amount of planning and demolition material (regardless the brand) needed to bring it down so perfectly would imply pre-911 staging. Weeks not days. That of course brings into question all of 911.
Gauge's emotions and mouth were barely checked as he flirted with speculation on who did it -- he implied too much here. It was not needed.
However, the real "failing" point comes when he brings up the nanothermite.
Nanothermite (the real stuff -- known) must be compared analytically with the stuff that was found -- this could be a failing point and is not needed at this point.
What did you guys think?