The distraction from the important issue of media fakery by a controlled media, that is owned and controlled by the defense industry, which in turn owes its existence to the military, which is controlled by the world’s intelligence agencies, which get their orders from the elites of the nutwork.

Now, is pointing out that building 7 was shown on prefabricated, not LIVE, media, a worthwhile idea?

Possibly, and that’s why I do highlight some of the CSPAN videos with squirming guests.

However, since we know that there will never be any investigation into an event that could never be tried as a crime, since there wasn’t one really, but only a simulated one portrayed and propagandized by the media, then we may as well get the story out once and correctly the first time. A Fabian approach hasn’t worked so far, so it’s probably correct to conclude that it will never work!

The idiom “red herring” is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue.^[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or characters towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of a rhetorical strategy (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation as a result of poor logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

My final thought on the building 7 campaign boils down to this quote:

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Pynchon

This is the essence of controlled opposition.