9/11: The Case Isn't Closed - In defense of the "9/11 truth movement."

[StrictlyRockers]

http://www.alternet.org/story/45726/

9/11: The Case Isn't Closed

By Sander Hicks, AlterNet
Posted on February 2, 2007

In defense of the "9/11 truth movement."

Editor's note: The role of the alternative press is to offer perspectives that the commercial media won't touch. Having run a number of articles critical of the "9/11 Truth Movement" by Matt Taibbi, Joshua Holland, Matthew Rothschild and others, we asked Sander Hicks, a prominent voice within the movement, to share his perspective. For more of Sanders' views, see his book "The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistle-Blowers, and the Cover-Up."


No matter what you believe about who was responsible for 9/11, and how it went down, we're all amazed at how much political capital the events of that day produced for this administration: A bipartisan consensus on torture; an era of permanent war; detentions without trial; "no fly" lists for activists; the Bill of Rights gone with the wind, and a cowed professional media willing to self-censor and suppress pertinent information. The 9/11 "America Attacked" story has distracted us from the natural outrage we should feel over illegal wiretaps, stolen elections, hundreds of billions of dollars missing at the Pentagon, war profiteering, Enron and Cheney's secret energy policy.

But with Bush's popularity at a record low, a Zogby poll shows that over 40 percent of Americans now think there has been a "coverup" around 9/11. A more recent poll conducted at the Scripps-Howard/University of Ohio found more than a third of those asked said it was likely that "people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

So, it's probably no surprise that the propaganda mills of the State Department have recently been cranking out attack websites, targeting 9/11 skepticism. And it's not a shocker that the normal channels of media have followed suit (Time, New York Times, etc.) What's weird is how similar the attacks sound in the hallowed halls of "respectable" left political opinion. A recent column on AlterNet by the Progressive's Matthew Rothschild matched the recent bromides of Counterpunch's Alexander Cockburn. In both pieces, the way 9/11 has been questioned was attacked, with no alternatives suggested. Instead, questioning 9/11 at all was belittled with sweeping generalizations.

What happened to critical thinking? I thought "the Left" believed that the system's power is based on lies, exploitation and a media controlled by its own culture of overly cautious professionalism. The Left should be leading this 9/11 movement, not taking potshots from outside. Unfortunately, some of the movement's theories, like "the towers came down through a controlled demolition" sound esoteric at first blush. The "No Plane Hit the Pentagon" theory is a loose thread in a maze going nowhere.

The Left has no right to ignore or insult people for trying to assemble the puzzle that is 9/11.

Consider some of the pieces:
http://www.alternet.org/story/45726/

Sander quotes a journalist who I have deep, deep respect for as a researcher and writer, Peter Lance. He is highly recommended to anyone who has even a passing interest in sober research on this subject. This guy has won five Emmys, btw.
http://www.peterlance.com/

He was on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman on 11/29/06. He talked about his new book, Triple Cross: How Bin Laden's Master Spy Penetrated the CIA, the Green Berets and the FBI - And Why Patrick Fitzgerald Failed to Stop Him.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/29/1438234

Books:
Cover Up: What the Government Is Still Hiding About the War on Terror ISBN 0-06-054355-8
1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI -- The Untold Story ISBN 0-06-059725-9
Triple Cross: How Bin Laden's Chief Security Adviser Penetrated the CIA, the FBI, and the Green Berets and Why Patrick Fitzgerald Failed to Stop Him ISBN 0-06-088688-9
Stingray : The Lethal Tactics of the Sole Survivor ISBN 1-885840-03-9
First Degree Burn ISBN 0-425-15698-2

SR

[StrictlyRockers]

1. I am also going to suggest research in the following areas:

Research in the following areas will help you to understand 9/11. It is a puzzle for sure.
Google is my friend. I am learning with the rest of you.

The Quincy Pact
Ibn Saud and Roosevelt
Colleen Rowley - Time's Person of the Year
The Phoenix Memo
Robert Wright
David Schippers, the FBI and the Blind Sheikh
Robert Heilbroner - The Worldly Philosophers
http://www.amazon.com/Worldly-Philosophers-Lives-Economic-Thinkers/dp/068486214X
Stanley Hilton
Report From Iron Mountain
Leonard Lewin
Kissinger NSC and population
Tragedy and Hope - Carol Quigley (the fascist theocracy's philosophy on display here)
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/shadow/tragedyandhope.htm
L. Flecher Prouty
Sibel Edmunds
Breton Woods
petrodollars
Dollars for Terror: The Us and Islam - Richare Labeviere
http://www.amazon.com/Dollars-Terror-Islam-Richard-Labeviere/dp/1892941066

The thing is a bloody puzzle of an octopus. All of these subjects tie in to having a full understanding of why we may never know the whole truth behind 9/11.

I will post more when I know more. I have a lot of reading to do to get up to speed on this.

SR

[BeFree]

2. Five years ago

When I really started to delve into this sordid affair, it came as quite a shock to read how we were deceived. It has not been a happy time, and after a while ignore became my friend. I've settled into an uneasy peace with the whole story but still KNOW it is yet to be completely told, and may never be.

It is quite powerful to come back to this forum after an absence of years and see that there are open minded people still looking up the story, seeking the truth: not afraid to confront the awfulness of it, or where it may lead.

My congratulations to all of you who are brave enough to keep an open mind and really examine the new ideas, and the old ideas, in the People's quest to put together what really happened.

[StrictlyRockers]

3. Thanks BeFree, great post.

And I think you touched on an important point. You don't want to stare into the abyss for too long. It is disquieting to do so.

These subjects are not for the faint of heart. They are unsettling. Disturbing. Disconcerting. Almost unnerving. Still, I don't see that we have any choice except to all educate ourselves and fight the good fight. Find out where the rabbit hole leads. Just don't become a rabbit.

I feel very determined to study our history so I can have better understanding of what is going on. But I expect to only come to it when I have good energy to bring to it, positivity, because I know how studying this stuff can leave you upset. Critical thinking skills in full effect and ready to brainstorm creative solutions, that's when I know I am ready to dive in.

Hubris brings powerful people down all the time. You and I have the ability to tell them where they are wrong and stop them. What choice do we have? Roll over and let the fascists win? I cannot. These subjects nag me. They disturb my reverie. They cause me to take action, and I am.

SR

[William Seger]

4. Some of you may have missed the drift of the article

From the article:

When the critics focus on the wacky theories and not on careful, moderate, serious authors like Lance, it's a strategy to frame the debate. It steers the argument from going after the real meat of 9/11: the history of U.S. foreign policy in strategic alliances with radical Islam.

This is an argument that a few people here also make, but the logic eludes me even if I agree with Hicks where the attention should be focused. Why does Hicks direct his scorn at the critics who "focus on the wacky theories" instead of on the people who invent and promote them? Wouldn't it be easier to take the argument where he wants it to go if it weren't for the fact that those wacky theories have become the very meaning of the "truth movement" to most people? Why does he blame the critics for that -- for "fram{ing} the debate" by simply responding to the nonsense the wackos spread far and wide? So, how does Hicks propose that the wacky theories should be dealt with -- just ignore them? The dubious assumption seems to be that just ignoring the wacky theories and those who promote them will somehow allow him to "steer the argument" toward the theories that he thinks aren't wacky, which makes no sense to me. The far greater part of the "truth movement" itself would have no use for Hicks' attempts to steer the argument away from their beloved wacky theories.

[BeFree]

5. You're right

Hick seems to be afraid of theories that are not OCT.

So what? But I do understand if he is doing so in an attempt to keep himself within reach of people who could get a new investigation going. It's an old ploy to make light of extremists so as to position yourself as a moderate centrist. Heck, I'd do it too if I thought it would help. As it is I can only make fun of those extremists who believe the bushco theory.

Lets hope he can help get a new investigation going. Meanwhile, lets all keep an open mind and think about this critically, eh?

[William Seger]

6. Maybe

> But I do understand if he is doing so in an attempt to keep himself within reach of people who could get a new investigation going.

Or maybe it's because he has thought critically about those wacky theories and found them to be highly implausible? I doubt he would call them wacky if he hadn't. I think you're afraid that they really are wacky, so you've closed your mind to that.

[BeFree]

7. Oh, some are wacky all right,

...and some are very plausible. But knowing the crooks in power, and knowing I wouldn't put anything past them, I really can't exclude much of anything anything but the OCT.

I was like you once upon a time. But I read, and tried hard to understand what I read, even tho it scared the hell outta me. So, coupled with the knowledge of what bushco means to the world, it became pretty much simple math: 1+1+2.

So, tell us, Seger, what is the most whacked part, IYO? Ya know, something you have thought about critically and with an open mind?

[William Seger]

8. The only thing you apparently know...

... about "critical thinking" is how to spell it.

> I was like you once upon a time.

Really? What happened?

> But I read, and tried hard to understand what I read, even tho it scared the hell outta me.

Well, if you read the bullshit that you found on the typical "truther" sites and watched videos like Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries and In Plane Site, and accepted it uncritically and didn't think to check out the facts then... no, you were never once like me.

[BeFree]

9. You're right, I never was

I was wrong to have ever imagined myself as being so hard-headed and closed minded. Nope, not like you at all.

[Bryan Sacks]

10. Answering William Seger

You wrote:

Why does Hicks direct his scorn at the critics who "focus on the wacky theories" instead of on the people who invent and promote them? Wouldn't it be easier to take the argument where he wants it to go if it weren't for the fact that those wacky theories have become the very meaning of the "truth movement" to most people? Why does he blame the critics for that -- for "fram{ing} the debate" by simply responding to the nonsense the wackos spread far and wide? So, how does Hicks propose that the wacky theories should be dealt with -- just ignore them? The dubious assumption seems to be that just ignoring the wacky theories and those who promote them will somehow allow him to "steer the argument" toward the theories that he thinks aren't wacky, which makes no sense to me. The far greater part of the "truth movement" itself would have no use for Hicks' attempts to steer the argument away from their beloved wacky theories.

1. Why does Hicks direct his scorn at the critics who "focus on the wacky theories" instead of on the people who invent and promote them?

Hicks has directed scorn at the inventors and promoters. There's no contradition in direct scorn both ways, as both groups of people deserve it.

2. Wouldn't it be easier to take the argument where he wants it to go if it weren't for the fact that those wacky theories have become the very meaning of the "truth movement" to most people?

If you are right, that is ultimately a failing of 'most people', who themselves fail to confront the media realities of the day.

3. Why does he blame the critics for that -- for "fram{ing} the debate" by simply responding to the nonsense the wackos spread far and wide?

Who should he blame, Mother Theresa? You seem to take it as a given that the stupidest theories have to be the ones reported on by the media. Imagine if news programs covered science that way. Unless a theory has merit sufficient to bring it's content to a wider audience, OF COURSE it should be ignored. I understand that in the current media dynamic, the spectacular theory will draw attention away from the more studied and careful one, but that can hardly be blamed on the careful and studious.

4. The dubious assumption seems to be that just ignoring the wacky theories and those who promote them will somehow allow him to "steer the argument" toward the theories that he thinks aren't wacky, which makes no sense to me. The far greater part of the "truth movement" itself would have no use for Hicks' attempts to steer the argument away from their beloved wacky theories

Talk about dubious assumptions! Here your prejudice comes shining through, try though you do to hide it. To the first part of this statement, I'll ask: why is it MY duty to confront baseless theories, simply because as a 9/11 skpetic I have been put in a category by the mainstream press with people who clearly have their own agendas unrelated to 9/11? I have nothing to do with them. I'm only associated with them in the first place because of a lazy media and outmoded types of thinking. Not my problem.

Second, the 'far greater part' of 9/11 skeptics are happy to, and do, take a more cautious approach. You obviously have some unnatural fear of association with these "wackos", but that's your issue. They're people who believe strange things that aren't true - you know, like Christians who believe in the Resurrection, for instance. But so what? The bottom line is: if governments are willing to attack their own citizens when it serves them - and we got a reminder from Zbig Brzezinski this week that false flag attacks are perfectly well in play - then people will be unnerved by this. If that upset comes out in bizarre, ridiculous theories, isn't that undertstandable to a degree?

[William Seger]

11. Simple not realistic -- or intellectually responsible

> Hicks has directed scorn at the inventors and promoters. There's no contradition in direct scorn both ways, as both groups of people deserve it.

I don't see evidence of equal "scorn both ways," and I certainly don't agree that "both groups of people deserve it." (We should also at least strive to avoid conflating scorn for nonsensical ideas with scorn for the people who promote them, but Hicks goes directly for impugning the motivations of the critics while side-stepping what they are saying.) Do you also think that people who promote homeopathic medicine and the people who try to spread the word that homeopathic medicine is no more effective than placebos are both worthy of scorn? If so, then you and I see the world very differently, but I can't say I'm surprised about that.

> If you are right, that is ultimately a failing of 'most people', who themselves fail to confront the media realities of the day.

You're simply kidding yourself if you blame the media for creating the impression that wacky theories are the solid mainstream of the "truth movement." You must not even read this board very closely (actually, not even the replies to this thread), much less the dozens of other popular forums that have hardly anything but the wacky theories, with hardly a word of dissent or the "lukewarm" theories that you and Hicks would like to see pursued. That's the reality, and it wasn't manufactured by the mainstream media. Far from it, it was manufactured by people who take great pride in eschewing the mainstream media.

> You seem to take it as a given that the stupidest theories have to be the ones reported on by the media.

And again, it is not by any means the media that spreads the stupidest theories. The stupidest theories are hardly ever mentioned in the mainstream media and even then, with the shallowness that the media is famous for, it's not more than "some people believe..." -- much to the anger and disappointment of the wackos who promote them. To really see the wackiness of the "truth movement" you have to track the beast to his lair.

> To the first part of this statement, I'll ask: why is it MY duty to confront baseless theories, simply because as a 9/11 skpetic I have been put in a category by the mainstream press with people who clearly have their own agendas unrelated to 9/11? I have nothing to do with them. I'm only associated with them in the first place because of a lazy media and outmoded types of thinking. Not my problem.

As with any other kind of nonsense, leaving baseless 9/11 theories unchallenged creates the impression among many people that they must have some validity; otherwise they would be challenged. No one has been charged with a "duty" to confront baseless theories, but many people understand that unchallenged nonsense spreads like a virus, and many people believe that nonsense doesn't do anyone or society as a whole any good at all -- at best! But nonsense can also be dangerous, and if Islamic terrorists are in fact dangerous then it's very unwise to spend time trying to figure out how bushco "dustified" the towers instead of dealing with the real-world problems. If you prefer looking down from your ivory tower with equal scorn for both sides of the conflict between reality and delusion, suit yourself.

> Second, the 'far greater part' of 9/11 skeptics are happy to, and do, take a more cautious approach.

And again, do you even read this board?

> The bottom line is: if governments are willing to attack their own citizens when it serves them - and we got a reminder from Zbig Brzezinski this week that false flag attacks are perfectly well in play - then people will be unnerved by this. If that upset comes out in bizarre, ridiculous theories, isn't that undertstandable to a degree?

"Understandable" is not the issue; the issue is dealing effectively with reality, and investigating some of the valid questions about 9/11 would be a good start. But there is very little hope that that will happen now, and the main reason for that is because "re-open 9/11" has become the battle cry of people who want to investigate Star Wars beam weapons and holographic planes. That's the current reality, and you seem to be content to ignore it.

[MervinFerd]

14. Damn, William, you are getting downright eloquent! Good response.

[StrictlyRockers]

16. You are rather easy to impress.

[StrictlyRockers]

15. I beg to disagree with you, sir. Your characterizations are false and misleading.

You continually use the exact same tactic that Sander Hicks rails against in his article in every one of your posts on this thread, Seger. You make it quite clear, in every single post, that your intention is to discredit the movement by associating it with wacky theories. I am a member of this movement, have been for over three years. I regularly attend meetings of the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance, pass out Deception Dollars, postcards, throw the Commission's report in the San Francisco Bay, give DVD's to friends, etc.

This movement is now growing exponentially. I can tell you, unequivocally, that you are totally wrong. Sander Hicks just told you this, too, but you obviously didn't read the article to see the hypocrisy of what you are posting here, in this thread, which is about his article, and it harshly criticizes what you do in each and every post here.

The members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, for the most part, feel the same way about wacky space beam ideas as everyone else does. We think they are wacky. The leaders of this movement are currently taking steps to distance themselves from unscientific speculation. This is exactly why The Schollars for 9/11 Truth group just split in two, but you obviously know very little of the truth about what you are speaking about. Conflating the truth movement with the wacky theories is totally dishonest of you, and very hard to respect.

I give you a few examples of the dishonesty you engage in to illustrate my point.

"...if it weren't for the fact that those wacky theories have become the very meaning of the "truth movement"...

Um, that's bullshit. Take it from someone inside the movement.


"The far greater part of the "truth movement" itself would have no use for Hicks' attempts to steer the argument away from their beloved wacky theories."

Absolutely wrong. And a perfect example of how you try to portray the movement one way, when the real truth is diametrically opposite what you say. In fact, the far greater part of the “truth movement” finds Hicks’ attempts extremely useful in our current effort to steer the movement away from wacky theories and towards sound, scientific ones.


"Well, if you read the bullshit that you found on the typical "truther" sites…”

This one truly reveals your stripes. You are not making any friends among the “truthers” with statements like that! This is another attempt to conflate the whole movement, including the serious, sober sites with the few BS ones. If you try to take the “wacky” stuff and then call it “typical”, I call bullshit on that Orwellian turn of phrase.

The glass is half-full, my friend. There is no need for you to dwell upon the negative here. There are PLENTY of well-researched, serious sites out there with gobs of scientific and other hard evidence, which leave no doubt that the government’s story is not just implausible, but totally impossible. Focusing on the negative will leave you depressed, unhappy and unfulfilled.


"…homeopathic medicine and the people who try to spread the word that homeopathic medicine is no more effective than placebos are both worthy of scorn?"

Two sentences after you complain about “conflating”, you come up with this gem. Nice analogy, pal! What are you going to compare the 9/11 Truth movement to next, people who believe in the healing properties of cannabis? Crazies I tell you! The people in all 14 of those states must all be crazy!


"You're simply kidding yourself if you blame the media for creating the impression that wacky theories are the solid mainstream of the "truth movement."

Totally wrong again, and just an attempt to use your own echo chamber to justify your bias. You are the one guilty of blame for creating this impression. You and others, and the media, and you are all worthy of my derision, imo. And while it is tempting to write you off as intransigent and intractable, I will still make an effort to educate you as my DU brethren.


"To really see the wackiness of the "truth movement" you have to track the beast to his lair."

The negative hits just keep on coming. I have yet to see a single bit of positivism from you on this subject. Nothing. it is hard to justify conversing with someone who has this kind of attitude on any subject, let alone an important one. Now the Truth Movement is a beast, and not just any beast...a beast with a LAIR. Naw, that doesn’t sound a bit negative to me. You don’t have any agenda here. :sarcasm:


"As with any other kind of nonsense, leaving baseless 9/11 theories unchallenged creates the impression among many people that they must have some validity; otherwise they would be challenged."

Balderdash! This reveals your stripes again. You are here railing against baseless theories in a thread about an article which has NOTHING to do with baseless theories. You are a white knight on a shining charger tilting against baseless theories EVEN WHERE THERE ARE NONE! Go man, go!! You can do it!!

The other thing you do which is really lame is take people to task for not going through every post in this forum to read everything you write. God forbid that they not subject themselves to the meme of reading “9/11 Truth Is Wacky” fifty thousand times in EVERY SINGLE POST YOU MAKE. You, sir, are a one-note wonder.

People who consistently engage in this kind of intellectual dishonesty are solely looking to promote an agenda, and, in my opinion, are generally not worthy of debating. I have much better things to do with my time. But I appreciate your input on my thread. Thanks for coming. :hi:

SR

***EYES ONLY***

For serious researchers who are interested in the truth, here is what happened with the Schollars for 9/11 Truth schizm recently. Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer decided to broadcast her "space beams" theory on Fetzer's radio program at the very same time that Steve would be doing his live webcast from Berkeley on Noember 11, 2006. Once Steve got back and he and others in the scholars group saw that Jim Fetzer had done this, and listened to the ridiculousness of that theory (see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017 where Physicist Greg Jenkins Interviews Judy Wood),
they were so appalled that they finally decided to take action to have the information removed from the website -- naturally they found space beams to be discrediting, and there is no science behind the theories. But Jim Fetzer objected and refused to remove the material, and the disagreement increased from there. Since he was in complete control of the website, the rest of them were essentially locked out.

The owner of the www.st911.org domain also disapproved of Fetzer's behavior and so began to take action to take it away from his sole control. He passed the control of the domain over to Fred Burks after Fetzer threatened legal action against him (Fetzer hired a lawyer who took action). Fred Burks eventually decided to create a neutral page which linked to both new groups and their associated websites. During these events, the scholars membership participated in at 2 votes to make their voices heard. The vast majority of the membership voted to leave Fetzer's group and move to a new group with Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, etc.

I feel it is important for people to understand that this was not just some kind of academic disagreement about a theory that caused the groups to split. Unfortunately the existance of the "neutral page" (st911.org) tends to make it appear this way...but this was actually the outing of a significant dis/misinformation campaign (space beams destroyed the WTC) which would function to discredit the entire movement and especially the scholars group.

http://www.stj911.org/

http://www.911scholars.org/

http://www.st911.org

SR

[William Seger]

18. No need to beg. You can disagree all you like.

I have no need to "make friends" in the "truth movement" until it starts showing some respect for the truth.

So, the wacky thermite group has split with the wacked out space beam group because at least thermite is not science fiction; very impressive. You'll get to the bottom of this now, huh -- at least on that "serious, sober" site where you've shed the flakes. Maybe another "peer reviewed journal" will help now that you've shucked the wackier peers. Meanwhile, the wacky Loose Change group is splitting with their wacked out "no planes" contingent. But the movement keeps growing because you've got conclusive proof of... something or other.

> This movement is now growing exponentially.

I dunno, you might take another look behind you if you think it's still growing exponentially (I personally doubt that), but since growth rather than truth definitely seems to be the major objective, that would explain why you play Loose with the truth.

> I can tell you, unequivocally, that you are totally wrong. Sander Hicks just told you this, too, but you obviously didn't read the article to see the hypocrisy of what you are posting here, in this thread, which is about his article, and it harshly criticizes what you do in each and every post here.

I couldn't possibly care less what Sander Hicks -- or you -- perceive my motivations to be, or how wrong you think I am about the wackiness of almost the entirety of the "truth movement," and your accusation of hypocrisy makes me wonder if you know what the word means. You live in a world of self-delusion with a capacity for expanding as much as needed to keep your core delusions safe from attack. But it's not hard to figure out why you would much rather cast aspersions on the motivations of "movement" critics than deal with the issues. If you were actually anywhere near the truth -- in fact, if you were really concerned about getting at the truth -- you wouldn't be the least bit concerned about the "negativity" of your critics. But snake oil salesmen worry a lot about negativity, don't they -- because it's bad for the "exponential growth" of their business.

> I give you a few examples of the dishonesty you engage in to illustrate my point.

"...if it weren't for the fact that those wacky theories have become the very meaning of the "truth movement"...

Um, that's bullshit. Take it from someone inside the movement.

Maybe you're so close that you can't see the Forrest Gump for the elf-trees, but that doesn't give you the right to call my honest opinion dishonest. I came by it honestly by visiting many, many "truth" sites (including the one you call serious and sober) and by reading boards like this. My opinion doesn't become dishonest just because you don't want your own pet theories mixed up with someone else's, and your pet theories don't became any less wacky just because some are even wackier. (That seems to be the source of some of your confusion here, so just to clarify: yes, controlled demolition of the towers with thermite is only slightly less wacky than "dustification.")

> The negative hits just keep on coming. I have yet to see a single bit of positivism from you on this subject. Nothing. it is hard to justify conversing with someone who has this kind of attitude on any subject, let alone an important one. Now the Truth Movement is a beast, and not just any beast...a beast with a LAIR. Naw, that doesn’t sound a bit negative to me. You don’t have any agenda here. :sarcasm:

If you detected negativity in that statement, then I must have succeeded in my goal to express myself clearly. As for "positivism" it sounds like you'd be happier in a support group than an open discussion forum, and I think the Loose Change board is that-a-way--->. If you don't want to converse with me, that's easy: keep your mouse away from the Reply button on my posts.

Agenda? Of course I have an agenda here, but you apparently refuse to understand or confront what it really is, so you make one up that makes you feel better about your wacky "movement." But as this thread proves, discussing my agenda is pointless, so why not just get back to trying to convince rational people that your theories aren't wacky.

[StrictlyRockers]

21. You should not be posting in a thread about an article without reading the article, that is lazy

...and dishonest of you.

I do care what you think. That's why I am willing to debate with you. But you just stated that you don't care what I think. That is crazy talk from a wacky bird. Why would you even be posting here then??? You make no sense to me whatsoever now. Now, I just think you are someone with a weird compulsive disorder to joust with people who don't agree with him.

It's not my fault that you are both wrong and closed-minded. That is your problem to sort out. I'm jjust here to tell you the truth. I can't make you see it.

SR

[MervinFerd]

24. An articulate, reasoned defense of a conclusion rationally arrived at.

NOT.

[StrictlyRockers]

29. OOO, you cut me to the quick with that witty rejoinder.

ouch!

lmao

[William Seger]

30. That is a flat-out lie. I read the article

... my first post on the thread was accurate, it was a relevant point, and it was a fair criticism of what Hicks had to say. You are the one who has repeatedly been dishonest and now you want to tell me that you're "just" here to tell me the truth. I believe you even called me a hypocrite, didn't you. :eyes:

[StrictlyRockers]

35. Oops, my bad. I just made a bad assumption.

I must have made a bad assumption. Humble apologies for my mistake.

This assumption on my part was entirely wrong, and I apologize. My assumption was not based on your critical thinking abilities, or the writing level you display. It had nothing to do with your grammar or your sytax or your diction.

It had nothing to do with the fact that you do not address a SINGLE one of the dozens of IRREFUTABLE FACTS that Sander Hicks touches on in his article. That's why I assumed that you did not, or could not, read it. Instead of trying to shed light on it, or debate the fact that there are DOZENS of anomalous events still in question that point in the reverse of the direction that you seem to be pointed, you would rather try to lead the debate right back to your favorite, the wacky theories.

Let us go back and look at your first post then, shall we? If that is your defense for being universally negative towards seekers of the truth. Let us remark upon it...

From the article:

When the critics focus on the wacky theories and not on careful, moderate, serious authors like Lance, it's a strategy to frame the debate. It steers the argument from going after the real meat of 9/11: the history of U.S. foreign policy in strategic alliances with radical Islam.

you:
This is an argument that a few people here also make, but the logic eludes me even if I agree with Hicks where the attention should be focused. Why does Hicks direct his scorn at the critics who "focus on the wacky theories" instead of on the people who invent and promote them? Wouldn't it be easier to take the argument where he wants it to go if it weren't for the fact that those wacky theories have become the very meaning of the "truth movement" to most people? Why does he blame the critics for that -- for "fram{ing} the debate" by simply responding to the nonsense the wackos spread far and wide? So, how does Hicks propose that the wacky theories should be dealt with -- just ignore them? The dubious assumption seems to be that just ignoring the wacky theories and those who promote them will somehow allow him to "steer the argument" toward the theories that he thinks aren't wacky, which makes no sense to me. The far greater part of the "truth movement" itself would have no use for Hicks' attempts to steer the argument away from their beloved wacky theories.


Breaking it down.

Why does Hicks direct his scorn at the critics who "focus on the wacky theories"...

Oh, you mean why does Hicks direct his scorn at people like YOU? I'll tell you why using the quote that you used two sentances before this. Now pay attention. BECAUSE...it's a strategy to frame the debate. It steers the argument from going after the real meat of 9/11: the history of U.S. foreign policy in strategic alliances with radical Islam.

Despite your great intellect, you have not addressed a single one of the issues he raises regarding US history, CIA links with the hijackers and many other problems with your position. You choose to conveniently ignore them while you latch back on to your favorite wack job theory because that is all you've got. You are a one hit wonder.

For those who are interested in the truth, this forum could be a valuable resource if we didn't have to wade through all of the clutter and spam from people whose only interest seems to be preventing us from reaching the truth. Why not focus on the anomalies that we know are real and keep researching for hard evidence which can lead us to the real truth? I encourage you, my countryman, to study our past so that you can understand our present.

You:
Wouldn't it be easier to take the argument where he wants it to go if it weren't for the fact that those wacky theories have become the very meaning of the "truth movement" to most people? Why does he blame the critics for that -- for "fram{ing} the debate" by simply responding to the nonsense the wackos spread far and wide?

You are a comedian! I am laughing my ass off at that one. Spouting lies does not make them true. This is a base lie and an attempt to try to paint a huge movement as being all a bunch of wackos. According to you, that makes 40% of the American public wackos. And don't pretend you don't know that the movement is made up of at least 40% of the American public, because you claim to have read the article. Anyway, here's the quote in case you forgot.

...that over 40 percent of Americans now think there has been a "coverup" around 9/11. A more recent poll conducted at the Scripps-Howard/University of Ohio found more than a third of those asked said it was likely that "people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

The 40% poll was from years ago, and I am sure the numbers have grown. Guess what? You are very likely in the minority with your position by now. And that minority is shrinking all the time. Why? Because other people are a lot more open-minded than you. And a lot of people are much better critical thinkers than you are.

So, how does Hicks propose that the wacky theories should be dealt with -- just ignore them?

Ignore them!!!??? Horrors!!! Ignore the most wacked out theories so that the Truth Movement can gain credibility? Why that simply makes far too much sense for the logic-impaired to grasp. And there is also the consideration that doing so would deflate the ball that you love to kick around so much in our little sand box. Now that truly would be tragic.

What would Seger have to do with his wasted time if he didn't have wacky theories to joust at and pop all day like a good soldier? Can't allow that, now can we? Let's see if you can twist this around so that you don't seem like a total hypocrite for engaging in your favorite pastime in a thread which casts endless scorn on that pastime. The wacky theories are not the movement, remember? Do you recall the whole point of the article you just read and cited, you hypocrite? ...sigh...oh nevermind...

REMEMBER -- When the critics focus on the wacky theories and not on careful, moderate, serious authors like Lance, it's a strategy to frame the debate.

YOU:
The dubious assumption seems to be that just ignoring the wacky theories and those who promote them will somehow allow him to "steer the argument" toward the theories that he thinks aren't wacky, which makes no sense to me. The far greater part of the "truth movement" itself would have no use for Hicks' attempts to steer the argument away from their beloved wacky theories.

LMAO! You wish! Nice try pal! So not true. But if it WERE true, THAT would mean tha your ball would be GONE, and you would have to find a new hobby to waste your time on. So let's all hope that you are right and that it is true that 40% of the US population is in love with wacky theories. When it's 90%, will you be ready to jump on the bandwagon then, or are the blinders really that effective?

"...logic eludes me..."

No one here is surprised when you make statements like this.


SR

[William Seger]

41. Dear Truth Movement:

In response to your recent request that I cease and desist from "framing the debate" by challenging your wacky theories, please note that if you would please cease and desist from framing the debate by promoting wacky theories, then I will be happy to find a new hobby.

Love,
William

[StrictlyRockers]

42. Oh, but again you seem to have things entirely backwards, Bill.

The Truth Movement is not promoting wacky theories. We are the ones running away from wacky theories. You are the one promoting the wacky theories.

SR

[noise]

12. It seems

Hicks is expressing frustration with critics that intentionally use the "one size fits all" frame so they don't have to address the troubling questions about 9/11.

It's like saying "We debunked Loose Change so that means we debunked 9/11: Press for Truth as well."

IMO, it's dishonest journalism.

Why is he seemingly more upset with the critics? Perhaps because they have access to a wider audience and more importantly access to powerful people (government officials).

[MervinFerd]

13. Dishonest Journalism? --Count-- the threads on this Board.

The current page, or however many in you have time to do. What's the fraction of "lukewarm theory" threads (eg CIA involved with al Qaeda, bin Laden was CIA, Pakistan ran al Qaeda, etc)

vs

"Complete Idiot" threads (Controlled Demolition, Free Fall, Pulverization, Pod Planes, Dustification, Mini-Nukes, Fake Fone Kalls....)?

Don't even count the occasional blantantly anti-semitic thread.

I actually had trouble thinking of "lukewarm theory" threads, that's why that list is so much shorter.

How would a completely objective journalist describe the "Truth Movement" based on this sample?

Hmmm?

If any of you "lukewarm theorists" -really- have anything important to say and you want -anybody- to listen to it, your first and most important task is to denounce the nutcases and their theories.

Your next task is to state some coherent and refutable hypotheses of your own.


"Just asking questions."

[StrictlyRockers]

17. Dishonest posting? How is this board to be conflated with "the media"??

I really don't get this one.

The corporate establishment media want to portray the 9/11 Truth Movement as wacky.

And

Many posters on this forum want to portray the 9/11 Truth Movement as wacky.

Therefore

IT MUST BE TRUE!

The 9/11 Truth Movement is wacky! Remember, you heard it here first! (From MervinFord and BabSeger)

Beware the wacky conspiratists! Booga Wooga ooooooga!

SR

[MervinFerd]

19. Poor reading comprehension?

1. What fraction of the OPs on -this- board are "Lukewarm Conspiracy" theories?
2. What fraction of the OPs on -this- board are "Complete Idiot" theories?
3. What fraction of the OPs on -this- board are "Too Damn Crazy to Figure Out" theories?
4. What fraction of the OPs on -this- board are "Debunking attempts"?

And -this- board is far more mixed than the full-on Conspiracy sites--on which any posts that survive are in categories 2.) or 3.).

So, how is it the "Corporate Media" responsible for someone thinking the 911 Truth Movement is wacky?


And, the notion that "the 911 Truth Movement is wacky" most certainly did not arise with MervinFerd and William Seger. That idea has been around for quite a long while.

[StrictlyRockers]

25. OK, since you seem to be too intellectually lazy to do this very simple research yourself...

...and help youself in a very proactive way to become less wrong, I will do it for you, and help you to help yourself become less wrong.

9/11: The Case Isn't Closed - In defense of the "9/11 truth movement." StrictlyRocke... Sat Feb-10-07 08:05 PM 22 0 362
Potentially interesting documentary on CNN right now paulthompson Sat Feb-10-07 07:49 PM 5 0 55
"Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase." Tim Howells Sat Feb-10-07 07:10 PM 9 0 191
So, what explains this? Contrite Sat Feb-10-07 06:55 PM 10 0 197
NJ EMT says workers told WTC7 was going to be "pulled"! Contrite Sat Feb-10-07 06:23 PM 68 0 1080
The First Internet Blockbuster! wildbilln864 Sat Feb-10-07 06:01 PM 5 0 112
More Ground Zero Heroes On The Record:Building 7 Was Deliberately Brought Down helderheid Sat Feb-10-07 05:13 PM 5 0 81
This is my first post in this forum, but I have a question I want to ask. Midlodemocrat Sat Feb-10-07 05:01 PM 13 0 168
911 Hijackers got visas with help from the CIA Tim Howells Sat Feb-10-07 03:59 PM 8 0 186
This conference looks interesting. roody Sat Feb-10-07 03:31 PM 4 0 43
Is Zbigniew Brzezinski MIHOP? HamdenRice Sat Feb-10-07 03:09 PM 36 0 829
Democracy NOW! Transcript & video. reprehensor Sat Feb-10-07 12:26 PM 66 0 1094
Soft Earth and Flight 93-- version 2 spooked911 Sat Feb-10-07 10:16 AM 68 0 1343
German friend on 9/11 truth and holocaust denial (Eric Williams redux) JackRiddler Sat Feb-10-07 08:07 AM 0 0 47
Empire of Oil: The Hidden History of 9/11 (Google Video) JohnyCanuck Sat Feb-10-07 07:47 AM 0 0 18
Who selected the book, "My Pet Goat", that Bush read on 911? screembloodym... Sat Feb-10-07 06:27 AM 18 0 271
9/11 Press for Truth on LINK TV - From Feb. 10th reprehensor Sat Feb-10-07 12:29 AM 7 0 108
The Anthrax Attacks Tim Howells Sat Feb-10-07 12:12 AM 26 0 589
OpEd News: Why We Need a New 9/11 Commission petgoat Fri Feb-09-07 11:00 PM 30 0 412
Audio: Alex Jones & the Temple of Doom BreakForNews Fri Feb-09-07 10:07 PM 0 0 33
'The Forward' Covers Rabbi Michael Lerner's 9/11 Skepticism reprehensor Fri Feb-09-07 09:08 PM 24 0 433
How Many People Have Actually Read Judy Wood's Directed Energy Weapon article? spooked911 Fri Feb-09-07 08:07 PM 99 0 1504
alsaha.com Generarth Fri Feb-09-07 07:24 PM 151 0 2403
Lesson in History: Operation Gladio Andre II Fri Feb-09-07 06:58 PM 30 0 902
An open-minded person who is inexperienced and uninformed will need to... greyl Fri Feb-09-07 06:13 PM 7 0 210
"20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse" (blg 7) rodmant Fri Feb-09-07 06:04 PM 2 0 88
"What would YOU need to believe Truthers?" greyl Fri Feb-09-07 02:46 PM 133 0 2281
Interview with Judy Wood. Bushwick Bill Fri Feb-09-07 01:31 PM 97 0 2168
Indira Singh- PTECH, 9/11, Banks, Drugs, & Bohemian Grove more_pain_ple... Fri Feb-09-07 12:53 PM 14 0 328
Popular Mechanics Smack down Twist_U_Up Thu Feb-08-07 08:35 PM 20 0 459
New connections reported: Mohammed Atta, Flight School operator and CIA HamdenRice Thu Feb-08-07 06:35 PM 72 0 2148
Counterpunch & DemocracyNow: What did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks? HamdenRice Thu Feb-08-07 06:00 PM 20 0 564
Scathing - but funny - rebuke of the 9/11 Truth movement (Rolling Stone writer). Kingshakabobo Thu Feb-08-07 05:40 PM 55 0 1552
Estevez To Play CIA Mastermind In Stone's Post-9/11 Movie Twist_U_Up Thu Feb-08-07 02:41 PM 0 0 50
What can anyone tell me about the BOX PLOT? magellan Thu Feb-08-07 01:45 PM 5 0 134
911 Conspiracists and Selective Skepticism - 9 min vid. greyl Thu Feb-08-07 01:00 PM 1 0 52
Democracy Now! updates 9/11 Israelis cheering/tracking the hijackers yurbud Thu Feb-08-07 10:05 AM 0 2 76
The Sabotaged FBI Invesigations pre-911 Tim Howells Thu Feb-08-07 05:28 AM 12 0 265
Wolfowitz Speech at West Point, June 2001 Tim Howells Thu Feb-08-07 03:27 AM 0 0 54
Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases Tim Howells Thu Feb-08-07 01:26 AM 27 0 377
Was 9/11 an inside job? (Poll) John Q. Citiz... Wed Feb-07-07 06:39 PM 304 0 10713
Are these "confession" videos authentic? (Poll) greyl Wed Feb-07-07 12:28 PM 5 0 147
Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott noise Wed Feb-07-07 12:19 PM 2 0 82
Andrews AFB seen by Google Earth ma2007 Wed Feb-07-07 09:01 AM 101 0 2020
A Beautifull Red Herring ma2007 Wed Feb-07-07 08:32 AM 0 0 81
The CIA's internal review report noise Wed Feb-07-07 08:31 AM 4 0 170
Great video on the collapse of the towers I_like_chicke... Wed Feb-07-07 07:38 AM 130 0 2053
The Kucinich OCT Vs the Bush OCT. (Official Conspiracy Theory)
Thermite and the Case for Controlled Demolitions... wildbilln864 Tue Feb-06-07 09:46 PM 17 0 257
Spare Some Loose Change for George Monbiot?


Of the first fifty thread on this forum, I count a grand total of two (2) that involve wack theories (the two about Judy Woods). That is 4% of the articles here. I think you are arguing a losing battle. But do what you feel you must. Every other thread is an informative new piece with good informatino to help us piece this puzzle together and get to the truth.

For those interested in the truth, this website could be a valuable resource if we didn't have to wade through all of the people whose sole interest seems to be preventing us from reaching the truth.
SR

[MervinFerd]

31. Only Judy Woods is crazy? Hmmmm. You didn't look very hard.

[StrictlyRockers]

36. Ok, show me your percentage then.

[MervinFerd]

20. Con-men, bullies, and lunatics.

This is not directed at any person on this Board.

There -is- a backlash from the serious Left--the folks who actually work to win elections. The folks who think and write about issues that affect peoples lives. Any writer who makes any comment critical of any aspect of the "Truth Movement" is besieged with hate mail. Any organizer trying to begin rational discussion can count on at least one loud-mouth fool advocating Controlled Demolition.

The source of this? Well-meaning seekers of truth? Hardly. Con-men making money and getting famous; lunatics like Judy Wood; and self-aggrandizing bullies who profess opinions that can only be defended by bombast and bluster.

Let the backlash continue. Let it grow.


"Just asking questions."

[StrictlyRockers]

22. Unacceptable language for describing the Truth Movement here.

We are not -- "loud-mouth foola" or "conmen" or "bullies" or "luntics".

What we ARE is right. The sooner you start to agree with us, the sooner you will cease to be wrong.

SR

[MervinFerd]

23. I referred to the likes of Loose Change Avery and Dr. Dustification and the ...

various Jones's and etc. I specifically excluded anyone on this Board.

If you do not fit one of those descriptors, then you were not described.



Do you deny that there are fools, con-men, lunatics and bullies within the "Truth" Movement?


<<"What we ARE is right. The sooner you start to agree with us, the sooner you will cease to be wrong.">>

State a coherent hypothesis and we can at least begin to -decide- whether you are right. In the meantime, what I hear is a demand that I shut up.


"Just asking questions."

[StrictlyRockers]

26. Lame.

Do you deny that there are fools, con-men, lunatics and bullies within the OCT group?

[StrictlyRockers]

27. Jsut asking questions.

[MervinFerd]

33. Yes.

[StrictlyRockers]

37. Yes, I am just asking questions.

That's what we all should be doing...asking more questions.

SR

[StrictlyRockers]

28. Oh, and when DID you stop beating your wife? Just asking questions.

[MervinFerd]

32. You seem able to carry on a discussion all by yourself. You don't need me.

[StrictlyRockers]

38. But you make it much more fun when you come visit my thread.

Please continue to do so. But please bring facts and information and not just your opinion in the future.

SR

[noise]

34. Hopefully

the backlash against the corporate media and the government will grow as well.

I wonder why some people (generally speaking) seem to get more upset at the 9/11 truth movement than they do at the government's secrecy and cover up that gave rise to the 9/11 truth movement.

[StrictlyRockers]

39. Cognitive dissonance.

They become so caught up in the world view that the want to be real that they become blind to what is real and is as clear as day right before their eyes.

SR

[StrictlyRockers]

40. Put up or shut up time.

Anyone with an ounce of reason can see from reading this article, as short as it is, that the government's theory is as full of holes as swiss cheese. Despite the fact that my thread has been graced by several heated posts from defenders of the government's theory, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE POINTS MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE HAS HAD ANY ATTEMPTS MADE TO REFUTE THEM.

Why? Because these are the facts, ma'am. Just the facts. There are no wacky conspiracy theories here for them to latch onto, so they have nothing. The facts are not in dispute because they are incapable of disputing them. The facts show that the government's theory is a lie and that those who are defending it are participating in that lie.

Let's cut to the quick, shall we? Put up, or shut up time. Refute what Sander says in his article, or go start your own thread.

Thank you for your patience. We now return you to our regular scheduled broadcast.

SR