Reply #13: First of all, "truther" is your term.

[JackRiddler]

Many 9/11 skeptics have devoted a great deal of writing to the debunking of no-planes and other fallacies. There are endless pages on this by the Salter brothers, Eric and Brian (who preceded all others in taking on in great detail the VonKleist/Holmgren/Webfairy/Nico Haupt strand of pods-to-noplanes). Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley and Michael Green were also ahead of ScrewLoose and all others in deconstructing Loose Change 1-2 and In Plane Site, and you also have Arabesque, Emanual Sferios, most of the folks at the discussion board at truthaction.org, etc. etc.

It was as a result of efforts such as these that so much of the bullshit was dropped by Loose Change in its "final edition," and it's how most people finally saw through Fetzer and then Tarpley.

Search and ye shall find. I know my own pieces on these topics preceded most any of the ones from the debunkers, and I've been on Truth Action radio discussing this stuff as well.

Many 9/11 truth activists repeat certain fallacies that I find wrong ("living hijackers") or on which I am agnostic (demolitions), or fall for the wrong leaders (Alex Jones). But the overwhelming number of 9/11 truth activists and researchers completely reject no-planes at WTC, space-beams, Fetzer, Judy Wood, Holmgren, Nico Haupt, etc. These really are the tiny minority who simultaneously accuse all others of being agents (a tip-off that their interest is in division and chaos more than in truth).

Even mainstream outlets regularly admit that this no-planes shit really is fringe, although they all love to mention it. (They like doing stories about the 9/11 truth movement, instead of investigating 9/11, which is the problem in a nutshell.)

So please, before you display your ignorance, do the research to back or falsify your beliefs.