|[ Return to 9/11 Can | Reply to Topic ]|
|Diane||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 10:13|
Yes there are a lot of morons -- on both sides -- but I have usually tried to ignore them. I have usually paid more attention to the most intelligent and articulate representatives of any given point of view.
In my experience, some of the most intelligent and articulate people in the 9/11 Truth movement, including the ones I respected the most, have taken an agnostic stance.
A good example is Nicholas Levis, who posts as "Jack Riddler" (or "JackRiddler") on Democratic Underground, and who was a major leading 9/11 Truth activist in 2002 to 2005 (though he has subsequently became less active). In 2004, he was one of the leaders of the Justice for 9/11 campaign, a sincere call for a new investigation. He tends to take an agnostic stance, although his leanings are toward a variant of the position he calls "LIHOP plus" (as discussed here).
I think you may be confusing "grand conspiracy ideology" with "conspiracy theory" in a more general sense. What I wrote earlier, to which the above is a reply, was the following:
I should clarify that most of the people in category 1, including most of the more intelligent and articulate people, do believe in a "conspiracy" in the sense of "inside job." That's not the same thing as grand conspiracy ideology.
The above is correct for a believer in grand conspiracy ideology. However, to someone who sees 9/11 as just an especially bad instance of U.S. government wrongdoing, a genuine investigation can be seen as being difficult to attain but not impossible. What's necessary, to such people, is to have an investigation that is run by people without obvious conflicts of interest such as Philip Zelikow's close ties to the Bush administration. Lots of other instances of U.S. government wrongdoing have been exposed in the past, such as Iran/Contra. So, to someone who believes that "9/11 was an inside job" but does NOT believe in full-blown grand conspiracy ideology, there's no inherent reason why the 9/11 plot couldn't be exposed by an investigation too.
Alex Jones -- who promotes grand conspiracy ideology, not just 9/11 inside job theory -- never was one of the leaders of any of the several serious organized campaigns for a new investigation. He has endorsed such campaigns, but he has never founded or led them.
Richard Gage is a relative latecomer to the scene. His group was founded in 2006 (or maybe 2004?), if I recall correctly. So he certainly was not one of the inventors of the idea of a new investigation. In any case, Richard Gage makes no bones about the fact that he does believe that 9/11 was an inside job. As far as I am aware, he does not believe in grand conspiracy ideology, though I could be wrong about this.
Alex Jones probably does believe that a new investigation would be pointless. And indeed his followers, in groups like We Are Change, have tended not to participate in serious organized calls for a new investigation, preferring instead to run around heckling people whom they perceive as implementing "the New World Order." For them, as you correctly note, the idea of a "new investigation" does seem to be a talking point and little more. Some believers in grand conspiracy ideology have admitted this to me.
However, the very idea of a new investigation, especially as advocated by its more serious proponents, should not be judged by the way it has been used by the Alex Jones crowd. It should not be assumed that the very purpose of a new investigation, as advocated by its more serious proponents, has anything to do with the agenda of the Alex Jones crowd.
|#1||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Muertos||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 10:32|
Paid Disinformation Blogger
I'm not comfortable making a distinction between "good Truthers" and "bad Truthers." They're all nuts to one degree or another. Why give some of them a pass simply because they don't listen to Alex Jones?
"Intelligent and articulate" Truthers? Really? If they were so intelligent and articulate, why do they believe crazy shit like space beams and exploding paint? Why do they believe that it's even possible to have wired the towers with explosives? Why do they believe in "voice-morphing technology" and other science fiction rubbish? You have to accept some pretty outlandish stuff to even consider a 9/11 conspiracy possible. The fact that someone believes in a 9/11 conspiracy is prima facie evidence that they've got a screw loose somewhere.
|#2||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Diane||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 11:21|
The people whom I'm thinking of as the more intelligent and articulate ones do not believe in space beams and exploding paint. For that matter, even the We Are Change crowd doesn't believe in space beams either, for the most part.
If you wish to be able to communicate with at least some Truthers -- and it IS possible to do so -- then the ability to distinguish between different kinds of Truthers is an absolute prerequisite.
More later. Gotta run now.
|#3||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Ed||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 11:31|
Show me someone advocating what you see as a legitimate argument for a new investigation.
|#4||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Muertos||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 17:17|
Paid Disinformation Blogger
Diane, I'm finding your position on 9/11 and the "Truth movement" extremely difficult to follow.
You seem to be classifying Truthers into two groups based upon whether or not they believe in "grand conspiracy ideology." You also seem to be saying that there are Truthers who don't believe in "grand conspiracy ideology" and who are "agnostic" about whether it was an inside job, and those Truthers are OK because all they want is another investigation into 9/11 to clean up loose ends.
Have I characterized your position correctly? If I got wires crossed please correct me.
What I'm also unclear on is whether you have a problem with Truthers who DO expressly believe it was an inside job (like Richard Gage) but who evidently do not believe in "grand conspiracy ideology." Are you OK with those people so long as they limit their advocacy to a new honest investigation of 9/11?
|#5||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|cranberrysauce||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 17:24|
Let's blow up the Earth.
|#6||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Diane||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 18:42|
I hope I can clear up a few things.
The above is a misunderstanding of what I've been saying. To clarify:
1) I have not divided 9/11 Truthers into just two groups. So far, I've made at least three separate kinds of distinctions: (a) grand conspiracy ideologist or not, (b) inside job believer vs. agnostic, and (c) varying degrees of intelligence and articulateness.
Every political and social movement encompasses a wide range of people. If one wants to understand a political and social movement of any kind, let alone communicate with its adherents, one should not lump all its adherents into one undifferentiated box. The categorizations I've made here are not the only ways that people in the 9/11 Truth movement can be categorized. But these distinctions are highly relevant to how one would go about communicating with the people in question.
2) As for "another investigation into 9/11 [just] to clean up loose ends," that's not what anyone in the 9/11 Truth movement is currently advocating, as far as I am aware. Most people in the 9/11 Truth movement would, of course, propose some rather unrealistic questions for their desired investigation to look into. I am saying that a more realistic and well-informed investigation would be legitimate. Furthermore, if a group of 9/11 debunkers were to advocate such an investigation, then it would become a whole lot easier for those debunkers to have productive dialogue with people in the 9/11 Truth movement -- because advocacy of an investigation (even an investigation emphasizing different questions) would establish important common ground, making it psychologically a whole lot easier to communicate.
3) You asked about the relative "okayness" of different kinds of 9/11 Truthers in my eyes. Personally, I am, by far, most bothered by those who believe in grand conspiracy ideology ("Illuminati," "New World Order," etc.). This bothers me because of its roots in religious bigotry (of both the anti-Jewish and anti-occultist variety). Personally, I'm a whole lot less bothered by Richard Gage than I am by someone who claims that the 9/11 attacks were really a mass human sacrifice to ancient gods, performed as a religious ritual by the ruling Pagan/occultist/Satanist cabal. (The latter claim is not common, but, yes, I've run into it.)
This doesn't mean that Richard Gage's claims are "okay." But it does mean that people who believe in Richard Gage's claims aren't necessarily religious bigots.
4) Above all, I think it's important not to dismiss all people in the 9/11 Truth movement as "crazy." If you do that, you have thereby cut yourself off from the possibility of communicating with them. There do exist people in the 9/11 Truth movement with whom it is possible to have productive dialogue. If you dismiss them as crazy, or if you insist on lumping them together with believers in space beams and exploding paint, then your inability to communicate with them is at least partly your own fault.
Are my views clearer to you now?
|#7||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Ed||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 19:05|
Who said anything about religious bigots?
I have talked to plenty of people who are atheists that believe demolition nonsense.
I don't really see a reason to, however even if you could find a rational reason for one the truthers would see it as a whitewash. They want to talk about hiajckers still being alive, explosions, demolitions, no planes, Wally Miller, thermite, bombs, pyroclastic clouds, molten metal, Silverstein, dancing Isralis, fuel fuel, flight manifests, phone calls etc etc.
|#8||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Muertos||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 19:17|
Paid Disinformation Blogger
Yes, to some extent. Do YOU advocate a new 9/11 investigation?
I used to, but I no longer do, at least not a full-scale one. I think it would be a waste of time and money and it would only legitimize the conspiracists' nutty views by suggesting that the conclusions of the original investigation were somehow suspect. They aren't.
I also think you're overstating the persuasiveness that such an investigation would have. It's been my experience that the only reason Truthers want another investigation is that they hope it will uncover the conspiracy that they believe happened. If a new investigation did not reach that conclusion unequivocally, they'd simply scream that the gubbermint is covering it up all over again.
Furthermore, I remain unconvinced that there are a significant number of Truthers who aren't total wingnuts. Richard Gage may not be a religious bigot, but he's clearly a nut. Even a LIHOP or LIHOP-lite viewpoint takes a tremendous suspension of logic and common sense to maintain. I don't see how these people, if they're so inaccessible to logical or reasonable arguments, are going to abandon their conspiracy beliefs simply because another "evil gubbermint" panel concludes that Osama's 19 hijackers did it.
Also, space beams and exploding paint aren't fringe beliefs in the 9/11 Truth movement. They're mainstream. Because no evidence of explosives in the towers has come to light in 8 years and Steven Jones is the only person left in the movement who can plausibly claim to have once been a scientist, the Truthers have latched on to his ridiculous claims about the paint in the WTC containing thermite or whatever the hell they call it largely because they have no one else to hitch their star to.
Given the majority of public Truthers (Avery, Bermas, Merola, etc.) believe in all sorts of woo shit in addition to 9/11, everything from Federal Reserve to Apollo moon hoax, I don't see a whole lot of "role models" (if you care to call them that) in the truth movement for more "reasonable" beliefs.
|#9||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Diane||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 19:20|
I did. Opposing religion-based bigotry of various kinds -- including grand conspiracy ideology -- is my passion.
Later I'll start a separate thread on what I consider to be worthy topics/questions for a 9/11 investigation.
|#10||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Ed||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 19:24|
The only sane people who believe in MIHOP or LIHOP are ignorant people (and that haven't thought things through in any depth).
I don't know if someone like Michael Ruppert is MIHOP or LIHOP (he doesn't talk about explosives AFAIK) but I do know he is such a shoddy researcher you wouldn't ever want to trust him for any accurate information. I mean seriously, is he the kind of guy you're referring to? Are his points the things you think should be investigated? Just what do you think should be investigated more? And direct us to some people promoting the rational reasons for a new investigation that you are talking about.
|#11||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Diane||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 19:40|
I didn't say anything about the "persuasiveness" of the investigation itself. My point was that the process of promoting an investigation would create opportunities for dialogue.
I disagree. I don't see him as a "nut" at all, just mistaken -- and caught up in a crusade based on mistaken ideas.
People vary greatly in what seems "logical" or "common sense" to them, depending on their cultural background and life experience. In my opinion, you really shouldn't judge someone's mental capabilities based just on that person's beliefs.
|#12||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Ed||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 19:46|
Do you think anything Richard Gage says is remotely valid, Diane?
He isn't just mistaken, the man believes in silent explosives. He has been told over and over again why he is wrong, even by people like Gregory Ulrich who used to be a member of AE911 Truth, yet he just keeps singing the same old tune year after year.
He also promotes Anders Bjorkman's material who really is a nut, just some of the crazy things he believes in is that the WTC wouldnt have collapsed even if the top block was raised 2 miles above it and dropped on top. Gage knows this, Gage doesn't care. Gage says he got into 911 conspiracies because he read David Ray Griffin's book (or heard him on the radio I forget) and David Ray Griffin is one of the biggest liars/charlatans in the truth movement.
|#13||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Muertos||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 20:00|
Paid Disinformation Blogger
Gage is the guy who does "demonstrations" of the WTC collapse using cardboard boxes if I recall correctly. I guess you would agree that's one of his "mistaken ideas." At Screw Loose Change they call him "Box Boy." The guy's nuts.
I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that someone who believes in exploding paint or space beams is not playing with a full deck. Sorry if that seems prejudicial, but when people believe demonstrably crazy theories, I have to suspect there's some type of mental dysfunction at work.
|#14||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Diane||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 20:18|
Not anymore. I used to think that a few of his points were valid, but I've come to understand why they aren't.
I think most of his points are based on mistaken intuitions extrapolating from the behavior of smaller structures. A lot of ordinary people have similar mistaken intuitions. After all, skyscraper collapses don't happen very often. The WTC collapses were unique events. That being the case, popular misunderstandings are inevitable.
By the way, as of the last time I looked at his slide show (admittedly over a year a go), none of Gage's points were original with him. Everything he said was lifted from Jim Hoffman, David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, or Loose Change.
|#15||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Diane||Posted: Apr 18, 2010 - 20:39|
Why do you keep bringing up "exploding paint or space beams" as if they are somehow representative of the 9/11 Truth movement?
Most of the leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement do NOT believe in "space beams."
As for "exploding paint," no one actually believes in that, as far as I can tell. You're apparently referring to a controversy over the chemical composition of Steven Jones's red chips, which he claims are thermite, but which some people in the debunker camp claim are paint chips. (Here is what came up when I Googled "exploding paint 9/11".) I don't know enough about chemistry to have an informed opinion about that particular controversy, except to note that anyone who claims that anyone is advocating "exploding paint" is clearly misrepresenting Steven Jones's claims.
I'll add that I do know that Steven Jones has made lots of mistakes on other matters I do know more about, so I don't have high hopes for him being correct about the red chips either, especially since he is not a chemist. However, claiming that he or anyone else believes in "exploding paint" is clearly misrepresenting the controversy.
|#16||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Ed||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 07:51|
Actually yes Diane, they have said they believe in exploding paint.
It seems you are not familiar enough with just how crazy/dishonest/incompetent these guys are.
Maybe the confusion is due to how they can't seem make up their minds how this mythical substance was used (I say "mythical" since real nano thermite doesn't do what they want it to do) so maybe you aren't aware of everything they have said.
Here is some of the applications they have offered.
1. Painted onto steel beams as paint to melt them.
Now, people like Steven Jones seems to mix points 1 and 2 when he feels like it (he also specifically made point 2), and promoted EXPLODING PAINT.
In Jesse Ventura's mockumentary on 911 Conspiracies, Jones says this substance was painted on and then started saying how the workers could have thought they were using just traditional paint, but then he says that when it dries it becomes a HIGH EXPLOSIVE.
So there you are, Steven Jones is promoting highly explosive nano thermite paint.
That's why they then go on to do that stupid nano thermite painted on a steel beam test where they left out the conclusion of the experiment, which was that nano thermite didn't even melt through the beam let alone explode.
And the red chip thing has been debunked many times already.
I've seen truthers just refuse to read them or deal with it simply because the rebuttals haven't been published, presumably because this is the closet thing the truthers have EVER gotten to a legitimately published journal article and they are milking it for all its worth. Pretty laughable really considering all the papers that have already been published about the WTC collapses. However the Jones/Harrit red chip paper being published really isn't saying much since it was a Bentham journal where the editor quit saying she had no knowledge it, where another FAKE paper was accepted and another editor quit in embarrassment and Bentham as a whole had been in disrepute for some time for lax practises including spamming scientists. That's the best truthers have been able to do in all this time.
|#17||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Diane||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 13:01|
To Ed: Thanks for the update. I admit that I have not paid any attention at all to what Steven Jones has been saying for at least a year now, other than my Google search just yesterday for "exploding paint 9/11."
I was already aware that Bentham journals are not exactly top-of-the-line scholarly journals. And, as I said yesterday, I don't have high hopes for any of Jones's conclusions being true. But I don't feel qualified to debunk them either, or to make any well-informed commentary about debates between supporters and debunkers, which is one of the reasons why I stopped paying attention.
Apologies for my error in concluding that no one was advocating "exploding paint."
On the other hand, I am much more familiar with the much older 9/11 Truth movement controversies regarding "space beams." When I was active in the 9/11 Truth movement back in 2007 and early 2008, nearly everyone I knew in the 9/11 Truth movement thought that the "Star Wars Beam" idea was silly (and probably "disinfo"). So I still maintain that it is unfair to speak of "space beams" as if they are somehow representative of the 9/11 Truth movement.
|#18||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Ed||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 13:16|
It is true that the way Muertos worded it it, it sounds like Gage believes in space beams, which he doesn't.
In fact he even had removed a space beam promoter from their petition because of it, though if you read what they said they still can't bring themselves to say its just nuts.
Though they still have plenty of other fruitcakes on there anyway. Even Plautus Satire is on there pretending to be an expert in demolition and construction (though at least he doesn't pretend to have an actual degree), along with no planers like Anders Bjorkman (or, "Heiwa" on message boards) who they promoted as Petitioner of the Month and promoted some of his nutty papers.
|#19||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Muertos||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 13:35|
Paid Disinformation Blogger
Gage does not appear to believe in space beams. But the evidence is pretty clear that he is (at best) extremely incompetent or (at worst) a liar. Mark Roberts has compiled an exhaustive list of Gage's deceptions, errors, fallacies and incompetencies here: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept This includes 311 documented falsehoods in ONE of Gage's Power Point presentations given in June 2008. All of Roberts's work is extensively documented.
I especially like that one of Gage's "expert" structural engineers, Charles Pegelow, thinks that nukes were used to destroy the towers. Not space beams per se, but pretty close at least in nature, don't you think?
As Ed pointed out, the exploding paint theory is absolutely mainstream in the 9/11 Truth movement. Here is a Twoofer blog that rounds up all of their loonies who swear up and down that exploding paint was used to destroy the towers: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-about-that-exploding-paint.html</p>
I was looking for a hilarious blog that Ben linked us to months ago on the Facebook page where somebody went through an exhaustive analysis of how the exploding paint was applied to the towers, but unfortunately I couldn't find it.
Just for fun I've been posting debunking comments at the blog of a space beam nutter who has elected herself Judy Wood's cheering section. This "Dr. Babs" with her pink hair contacted me on Twitter and asked me to comment on her blog. I doubt she likes what I have to say, and I admit that I doubt "Dr. Babs" is a very big mover in the smoldering ruins of what remains of the 9/11 Truth movement, but her blog is an astonishing example of what Twoofers can convince themselves of:
|#20||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Ed||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 13:43|
From that howitwasdone911 blog...
I LOVE this picture.
"Amazing fumes from WTC7 side"... What's amazing about it? Those "fumes" is smoke and is coming from the building because its on fire you stupid woman! hahahahaha!! :D
|#21||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Diane||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 14:04|
I read that very post yesterday, when Googling for "exploding paint 9/11," and I did not see it as advocating "exploding paint" per se. I read it as pertaining to a debate over whether Jones's red chips were thermite or whether they were paint chips.
|#22||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Diane||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 14:10|
Maybe. It might also be the work of a hoaxter, such as Dr_Benedict_Zaroff has confessed to being, right here on this board. Did he ever get in touch with you, by the way?
|#23||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Ed||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 14:17|
As I say I think its because they change their minds so much about how they claim it was used.
Clearly these guys have no coherent explanation for how it was used, but the fact that they think this stuff was painted on really only serves two claims. 1. That it melted the steel and 2. That it exploded. We know that all these claims have been made.
Even Jones who earlier I showed talked about exploding thermite paint, also said that he thinks the nano thermite only served as "matches" for normal explosives like C4.
|#24||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Diane||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 14:23|
I would just say he doesn't do any original research and doesn't even do any of his own fact-checking. As I said earlier, as of the last time I looked at his slideshow, every part of it was lifted from Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, and/or Loose Change.
Back in the days when I was involved in the 9/11 Truth movement, I emailed him about a bunch of errors. He responded by CC'ing to me an email to his "team," asking them to look into these matters. I later learned that his "team" consisted mainly of people with no technical background whatsoever.
My judgment of Gage, based on my interaction with him, is that he is sincere but careless and overly trusting of the judgment of certain other people whom he has decided to trust for whatever reason.
|#25||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Muertos||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 14:24|
Paid Disinformation Blogger
If Dr. Babs's blog is a hoax, it's a brilliantly funny one! The only problem with spoofing Truthers and CT nuts in general is that every time you come up with a silly and obviously fake theory to try to laugh at them, somebody out there believes you're serious. I learned that with my joke "McKinley Conspiracy" video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRIB8TV69QQ , check out the comments).
Yes I did talk to Zaroff.
|#26||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Ed||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 14:27|
Basically truthers can be so crazy that its very hard to tell a parody from a real truther.
ie. A truther version of Poe's Law:
For example you'd think Anders Bjorkman is a parody, but he isn't. Just as nutty as that Dr Babs blog it seems, just in different ways.
|#27||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Sil the Shill||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 14:53|
@Muertos: Some of my favorites, just off the first page.
"Woodrow Wilson was a stupid puppet who had no clue as to what the bankers did, and regretted creating the FED when he understood what the 1913 FED act had created in the FED. Most history you read today is faked through CFR grants to Universities."
Ah, nothing like tired, old, debunked, CT talking points.
"Other than the Twain poem, I think they are on to something. Think about the fact that Leon Czolgosz- whatever people may say to the contrary- was a communist, as was Wilson (who was also an admirer and practitioner himself of fascism). Lee Harvey Oswald: communist. Kennedy: attempting to rid Cuba of communism."
I think you're on to something!
"Yah its real *funny*
Shame on you Muertos, shame on you. ;)
|#28||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Diane||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 16:21|
Looking at the comments following the video, I see that a large majority of the commenters did NOT believe the video was factual, although a few did believe it. Many of the comments were from believers in various other conspiracy claims who regarded the video as "disinformation" or otherwise wrong.
(Note to moderator: I inadvertantly posted the above in the wrong thread, where I then edited it to a "please delete." Above, I've re-posted it in the correct thread.)
|#29||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|
|Ed||Posted: Apr 19, 2010 - 18:07|
You keep referring to part of the Truth Movement you feel is logical, knowledgeable and rational and honest.
I am interested in this notion.
You did mention Sibel Edmonds in another thread, however I should point out that while she panders to them nothing she ever says ever helps them and she never promotes them on her website it seems. So she can't really be called a member of the truth movement either.
However you did provide an example of someone you claim to be one of the most "intelligent and articulate" members of the truth movement.
But is that really saying much?
Lets have a look at the websites you provide. Be aware that I hadn't heard of this man before you mentioned him, the point being that contrary to what you claim LIHOP is not very common in the truth movement. This Nicholas Levis guy is not exactly a big name, and if you're thinking of Michael Ruppert tha'ts really not someone you want to give as an example of someone who is honest, intelligent and articulate.
But lets look at his websites anyway...
On the very first page he is advocating....
9/11 CitizensWatch - which promotes explosives in the WTC on the very first page
Another list of stupid questions by 911truth.org
And the "unanswered questions: by the "Family Steering Committee" - Just more typical long debunked stuff we've all seen before.
I also googled on the website's domain and found this:
The above promotes such moronic stuff as the Odigo staff were warned about the attacks and the Operation Northwoods stuff.
But it actually gets worse...
On Part 3 of the Petition it actually says...
So either this guy is lying about not believing in explosives or he doesn't care about promoting all these people who do. Either way he is dishonest and not someone you want to be promoting as a good example of someone who is "intelligent and articulate" that you "respect the most."
But it doesn't end there...
In Part two it makes the usual NORAD falsehoods, it makes the FALSE claim about them changing the procedure shortly before 911 so that Dick Cheney would have to approve the military assistance for hijackings, it makes the $100,000 wire transfer claim, Promotes "hijackers still alive"...
... and they also say this...
That's right, more demolition claims. This is the person you are telling us you respect the most.
They even have an entire page on WTC7 nonsense if you click "See, Appendix A5":
This promotes all the same WTC7 nonsense like Silverstein saying "pull it" etc.
He also promotes the lying Kevin Ryan:
On Part 1 of the Petition he also promotes more truther groups again:
So who does he go on to mention? More typical truther websites...
I don't think I need to go on and I was just skimming it.
Now, everything it says on the badly formatted front page of www.summeroftruth.org is right out of the twoof handbook. Black Box claims, northwoods, wargames, able danger etc...
Under: "BEST 9/11 RESEARCH SITES", he lists, among others...
And he says ...
He also has a "9/11 Truth Test" where the first thing you see is the claim that the Bin Laden video was faked.
I'm sorry Diane, can I just check... is THIS man the best example you have?
|#30||[ Top | Reply to Topic ]|