Greatest Failures of the 911 Truth Movement, as seen by a 911 Truther

[metamars]

This was inspired by a snarkier, debunker-laden thread called The Greatest Fiascos of the 9-11 "Truth" Movement (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97622)

Here's my list:

1) Failure to investigate 911 hijacker associations, where such investigations require no state power, whatsoever. Indeed, the failure is worse than that - there was never (AFAIK) even any attempt to organize a fundraiser for such investigations. I'm thinking particularly of verifying and/or dis-confirming the work of Daniel Hopsicker (madcowprod.com), but also looking into, e.g., who the hijackers were schmoozing with in NJ, the reports suggesting Saudi intelligence handlers of 2 of the hijackers in San Diego, etc.


2) Political naivete. In particular, no attempt (AFAIK) by anybody to explain to 911 Truther Community the enormity of the real task, which would become more obvious if attention was paid to the repeated, long-lasting failure of the peace movement (which is 'non-strange', to boot, unlike 911 Truth) to achieve anything substantial, other than hastening the withdrawal from Vietnam. Or, the lack of results of many other high-minded activist groups.

I understand the psychological predisposition to avoid looking at this, especially for the true believers who genuinely believe that 911 is some sort of Rosetta stone for destroying government corruption and ending US-created or sponsored Middle East wars. However, it's not at all realistic. By analogy, even if a new procedure is discovered to operate on a hitherto inoperable cancer, it won't do you much good if you undergo the procedure after the cancer has metasticized.

Also, if you conclude (as I have), the the root problem is systemic corruption, there are not that many great ideas floating around for how to deal with that. E.g., David Sirota has written what is probably a great book (Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--And How We Take It Back ) giving not just a good overview of various aspects of corruption of the US government, but chock full of good remedies (from a high level policy perspective). However, the book is notably weak on how to get Sirota's great ideas implemented, when implementation requires passage of laws through a Congress that is already corrupted, and with an enormous lobbying apparatus already in place.

3) "911 was an inside job" slogan. This is related to 2). However, it's particularly off-putting, and so gets special mention. While this slogan may make for great theater for Alex Jones, and have great shock value, if you want to grow a truth movement that has political teeth, I don't see where being so strident about a conclusion (as opposed to a call for an investigation which could lead to this conclusion) makes much sense. As a form of protest, directed directly at the government, I can see it, but directed at the public, it has probably scared more people away than attracted them.

4) Failure to 'bifurcate' the movement, with one branch being educational/activist, and the other overtly political, but with an insider emphasis. One branch should have gone further into other false-flag operations in history, in terms of reaching out to the public. (See 6), below.) I.e., it would have not only embraced the 'hi-strangeness' aspect of 911, but sought to make it less 'strange', over time, by showing how murderous and duplicitous various aspects of the US government have been. I.e., teaching about additional 'high-strangeness' issues. You can think of this as the 'Alex Jones' approach, but without the bullhorn, simplistic reductionism to an overarching conspiracy, and hype, and with better and/or more careful (read: qualified) documentation. More Peter Dale Scott, less Alex Jones, but keep the videos coming, please.

The other branch would have run from any open embrace of any high-strangeness topic, including 911. It would, instead, have concerned itself with reforming the Democratic and Republican parties from the bottom up. (Hopefully enlightened by knowledge of what politics is really like. See here (http://openleft.com/diary/15278/indispensable-enemies)and here (http://openleft.com/diary/15477/what-is-populism-and-why-are-democrats-afraid-of-it), e.g.).

Back-channel communication, kept out of the public spotlight, is OK, but that's it. This branch could, had they started earlier (and can still do so, now), have helped the Working Families Party (http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/) get even more better people elected to NYC government (they've been successful without help from 911 Truth activists). And, accomplishing that, they could have found more sympathetic ears within NYC government who would not be afraid to fight for a local re-investigation of 911.

5) Failure to 'force the issue' with respect to the recent nano-thermite paper by Harrit, et. al. 911 Truthers could, collectively, have forced recognition of the Harrit paper at universities that have bona-fide researchers in nano-thermite, via taking out ads in the school newspapers. That would make it far, far more likely that at least some of those researchers would go on the record with their opinion of the Harrit paper. It's all well and good that the co-authors of the Harrit paper support their work, but that's standard.

I don't know what the final opinion of qualified critics re the nano-thermite paper would be, but the paper deserves more than obscurity. It deserves either to be seminal, or to be debunked. It's currently in limbo, not doing anybody much good, as far as I can tell.

Another major point, which I have detected being corrected, to some degree over the past few years, (e.g., at 911blogger.com) is:

6) Failure to teach context, by which I mean, teach about other false flags operations. Especially Operation Gladio, which was shown in court to have involved the murder of innocent Italian citizens. However, as per 4), it's not really been fully integrated into 911 Truth actions.

[W.D.Clinger]

5) Failure to 'force the issue' with respect to the recent nano-thermite paper by Harrit, et. al. 911 Truthers could, collectively, have forced recognition of the Harrit paper at universities that have bona-fide researchers in nano-thermite, via taking out ads in the school newspapers. That would make it far, far more likely that at least some of those researchers would go on the record with their opinion of the Harrit paper. It's all well and good that the co-authors of the Harrit paper support their work, but that's standard.

It's interesting to hear that Truthers think their cause would be aided by encouraging university scientists to state their opinion of that paper. As Harrit himself has acknowledged in interviews, there are hardly any real experts on nano-thermite working at universities, but there are many university faculty in chemistry and physics who are at least as well qualified as any authors of that paper.

Even I can see the broad picture of what the main body of that paper establishes and does not establish. Its discussion section is salted with wild speculation, partly contradicted by the authors' own findings. The authors' argument goes something like this: We'd like to think it's thermite, but it doesn't look or act like any thermite we or anyone we know has ever seen, so it must be double top secret nano-thermite.


I don't know what the final opinion of qualified critics re the nano-thermite paper would be, but the paper deserves more than obscurity. It deserves either to be seminal, or to be debunked. It's currently in limbo, not doing anybody much good, as far as I can tell.


Apart from Harrit, I haven't heard of any university research faculty in the relevant sciences who accept that the paper has proved the presence of manufactured thermite at the WTC. That, of course, is just a statement of my ignorance; if there are such people, I'd like to hear about them.

The paper never quite claims to have proved the presence of manufactured thermite, but that hasn't stopped Truthers from making that claim. In electronic discussion with one Truther who was pointing to the tiny spheroids of melted iron, I suggested that those spheroids could have resulted from rust reacting with molten aluminum. The Truther responded, in all seriousness, that rust doesn't react with aluminum.

University scientists aren't likely to reinforce such ignorance.

Will

[Hokulele]

It would also help if Jones would release samples for independent testing.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Killing a doctor in Colorado.

Killing three police officers in Pittsburgh.

Killing a security guard in Washingon DC.

Never offering so much as a penny to their victims families in compensation.

[Brainster]

7. Starting with a conclusion and hand-waving away any and all evidence which does not support that conclusion.

[MikeW]

7. Starting with a conclusion and hand-waving away any and all evidence which does not support that conclusion.
That's the key, I think, though the direct cause is a little different: the cult-like way in which people are encouraged to think the same things. Repetition of The Core Truths is valued; questioning them is punished, people quickly become irritated should you dare to show doubts.

The end result is an environment were people rarely learn. This 911blogger post (http://911blogger.com/node/21580) is a good example. It talks of ""nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims [who] enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah", buildings falling at "free fall speed", "explosion proof passports", describes Hanjour as "having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school", says Hanjour's best option was "flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon", but instead he opted for "an incredible 270 degree downward spiral" before hitting "the world's most heavily defended building", how on flight 93 "some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later", then " it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants... except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana", before mentioning how "Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously", how "Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination", and pointing out that "at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports".

Does anyone point out that these may not be the most reliable facts upon which to sell "inside job", though? No, quite the opposite - "This is great - I'm sending it to everyone I know" is a more typical response.