Arabesque: 9/11 Truth: Big Tent

August 6, 2007

Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11

Note by Arabesque: a new paper by Victoria Ashley references several of my articles on Disinformation and tackles the "Big Tent" 9/11 Truth Phenomenon as seen in the website "Patriots Question 9/11".

Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11
by Victoria Ashley

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html

PatriotsQuestion911.com is not unique in its mixing of nonsense-advocates with real researchers, but due to this site's high visibility the need to address this issue is all the more important. Efforts to get these small needed changes -- for the sake of the basic credibility of the entire 9/11 community -- have been fruitless. Hence, in order to keep the public aware of the basic role of the insertions of nonsense into our work which sites like PatriotsQuestion911.com are ignoring, this essay was created.

As we enter the 6th Anniversary of the attacks, the nonsense advocates are meeting for their own conference about TV fakery, nukes, UFOs, and space weapons, meaning that essays such as this are unfortunately increasingly necessary to provide a basic resource for journalists, researchers, and average readers who are questioning the 9/11 attacks, but are coming upon ideas so absurd, so often, that it might seem like most of the entire 9/11 community is simply nuts. But if one looks closely one finds that, in general, these people also appear to have held reasonable jobs and have even won grants for tens of thousands of dollars from the government.

This basic contradiction which we see again and again -- nonsense combined with expert credentials or high competency -- is a red flag in which only two possible rationales reasonably exist: either the person has begun a tragic course of Alzheimers (or some other organic disorder of the brain) which has apparently not yet been diagnosed nor affected any of their other abilities to function independently, or they are intentionally protecting the official story by attempting to discredit those who are questioning it by association. There are other possibilities - i.e., ego, spite, ideology etc. -- but most of those necessitate such a level of reckless disregard for the truth that they amount to an intentional effort to discredit, nothing more.

Some will argue that such essays and research as this are only negative, waste time, and risk getting us too involved in debunking and divisiveness rather than the positive work we should be doing instead. Indeed, the individuals described in this essay would likely feel the same -- "Shut up about the disinformation already, and lets all get along!" This is the basis for Big Tent, an organizing strategy which tends to welcome all ideas, no matter their content, for purposes of "unity."

The truth is, each of us has our own path, interests, fascinations, and abilities, and we can each contribute our best work by following what we feel most strongly about. Sometimes writing about mis- and disinformation is a cathartic exercise which can allow researchers to move forward knowing they have done as much as they can do to expose the charades. I recall discussing disinformation briefly on stage at a 9/11 event while waiting for the main speaker to arrive. Audience members were confused about some of the information they'd recently learned that made no sense to them and someone brought up a question. When I explained a little about mis- and disinformation, the history of it, the examples we know of, the likely possibility that this may be at the root of the topic they were confused about, there was a palpable relief in the room, almost an audible sigh that went across people. It surprised me: people understood immediately and in a gut way, gaining a knowing look on their faces as if to say, "Ah, of course . . . now I get it." After such situations are resolved, I've noticed, events move forward positively. I've witnessed such relief in a number of audiences when false claims have been brought up -- "But I think nukes were what really caused those clouds at Ground Zero!" -- and quickly decapitated by individuals like Dr. Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman and architect Richard Gage.

We are engaged in a 2-front information war, and pretending that we are not won't make one side go away. There are more than enough of us for all the different types of efforts -- outreach, organizing, group building, physical evidence research, petitions, lawsuits, FOIAs, and refuting false claims -- to move forward in unison.

The good news is that more and more people are seeing the nonsense and are rejecting it openly in their posts to forums, in their own essays, on blogs, and in films. Creating a firewall between the genuine research and the nonsense will take more than ignoring nonsense, it will take uniting against it. And that takes courage, as anyone knows who has attempted to expose mis- and dis-information and has been met with vitriolic public attacks and threats.

July 31, 2007

No Speculation Required: 9/11 Was an Inside Job

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” - Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

By Arabesque

Speculation is one of the favorite pastimes among those who like to play “armchair conspiracy theorists”. This is especially true when it comes to 9/11.

As seen in the Scientific Method, speculation is indispensable,[1] and is always valuable when used in the right context. Indeed, theory would be impossible.

If Dr. Steven Jones had never speculated about the use of thermate in the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers he would never have found the incriminating evidence of thermate proving beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an inside job.[2]

Here’s how speculation should work, as it does in the Scientific Method:

· Observation: Molten Metal for months at Ground Zero

· Speculation/Hypothesis: This is characteristic of a Thermite reaction—not Jet Fuel Fires

· Validation: Samples from ground zero tested for thermite—a variant called thermate is found.[3]

If there is no way to validate speculation it is impossible to get definitive answers.

Truthmod, an activist/moderator on the website TruthMove.org sums it up:

“Speculation gets us nowhere. Go with the sourced and confirmed facts and we can't be denied. Plane swapping, DEW, pods, no-planes, etc. all put us into the category of speculators and theorists while established facts give us credibility as true researchers and journalists.”[4]

Speculating about what happened on 9/11, examining the credible facts that show 9/11 was an inside job,[5] and examining the contradictory facts that demonstrate that the 9/11 official story is false[6] are all completely different things.

There are situations where speculation is the only option when evidence is being deliberately withheld. In such situations we can’t finalize or jump to conclusions—we can only speculate. When forced into this situation we should instead call for the release of more evidence and ultimately, a new investigation.

The withholding of 9/11 evidence serves two functions:

1. To hide the truth
2. To encourage speculation and distract attention away from verifiable facts

Encouraging speculation is part of an intentional diversion that plays on the psychological understanding that humans crave mysteries, and not what they know. The government is smart enough to understand that speculation frequently occurs when there is a lack of evidence, and that "conspiracy facts" are consequently ignored in favor of "conspiracy theories".

There are 9/11 “researchers” who make speculation the entire basis of their existence, and they are among the least credible “activists” within the 9/11 truth movement. ‘Truthmover’ at truthmove.org observes:

“This is one important reason to reject the 'big tent' mentality. The core of this movement, its facts and priorities have not changed. We have established probable cause to suspect government complicity. Anything detracting from this case or its promotion is not a part of the truth movement. In other words, the movement hasn't ever really split. There is another movement, adopting our themes, that has no particular dedication to the truth. I'll call them the ‘9/11 speculation movement.’”[7]

Why stick to what we know when we can guess about what we don't?

Similarly, Dr. Steven Jones suggests that a weak approach to examining evidence can turn people off from seriously examining the real anomalies of 9/11:

“Watching the ‘In Plane Site’ video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 "theories" initially—until I found serious researchers, scientists looking at hard evidences, and avoiding tenuous speculations.”[8]

Anyone even slightly paying attention to the Mainstream media in relation to criticism of the official 9/11 narrative would notice that there is a deliberate focus on only the 9/11 theories that are supported by “tenuous speculations” or even deliberate disinformation—mostly under the propagandist and wearily clichéd banner of "conspiracy theory"; completely ignoring the confirmed and embarrassing “conspiracy” facts.[9] Dan Abrahamson asks of those who speculate at the expense of the confirmed facts:

“Does their speculation get us any closer toward building a nationwide political movement and arresting the 9-11 plotters? Or is it a divisive strawman that will isolate us from the mainstream media and average Americans? …Suddenly it appears the controlled demolition, WTC 7, NORAD stand down, hijacking drills, war games, ‘Angel is Next’ call to Bush, living hijackers, double-agent hijackers, CIA insider put options, and ‘al-Qaeda’ links to Anglo-American intelligence are not enough. Now every researcher has their own pet theory about no planes, no hijackers, no phone calls, no Pentagon Boeing, and no flight 93 crash (they claim it landed it Cleveland and the wreckage in Shanksville was, you guessed it, planted).”[10]

9/11 Commission: Insider Stock Trading had “No Conceivable ties to Al Qaeda”. Michael Ruppert agrees: he investigated and found ties to the CIA.[11]

As Abrahamson says, our speculations are highlighted and our facts are ignored by the Media. This is exactly how speculation is used as a weapon against the cause of 9/11 Truth.

Alex Jones similarily asks:

“Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein? Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen. Why no discussion of the NORAD stand down? Because none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.”[12]

Given the fact that there is no real debate or speculation about the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, what is the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement? Endless debates over tenuous speculation or justice over the many proven facts?[13]

As Jon Gold has said, “the time for debate is over.”[14]

How does unsubstantiatable and never-ending speculation bring us closer to Justice? How will it force another investigation?

In the information war, we are never going to be victorious or have a powerful effect by debating weak arguments that can’t be proven endlessly. It is self-defeating if we support true (or even false) conclusions with false, misleading, uncertain, unconvincing, or biased arguments. Unverified speculation is the entire basis of a Trojan Horse Straw-man exploited unmercifully by Popular Mechanics, the Mainstream Media, the left gatekeepers, and many others.

While the facts speak for themselves, they are sometimes not enough to convince everyone, which is why the best evidence must be consistently presented. As Oilempire says:

“If there is any hope for the ‘9/11 truth’ movement, it will involve refocusing on the evidence that has the strongest proof, and excluding the hoaxes and those who push the hoaxes.”[15]

While at first glance the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job is unthinkable, those who believe any government is incapable of killing its own citizens have not seen the Northwoods document,[16] paid attention to the fact that the government lied about the air quality at ground zero which will outrageously result in more deaths than 9/11,[17] or observed historically documented “false-flags” resulting in the deaths of civilians to justify wars.[18]

There are many who believe that corrupt elements within the US administration could unload the next 9/11 at any time to justify war with Iran, further destroy civil liberties, and even enable a dictatorship.[19]

Speculating while proving nothing when we have real evidence to prove an inside job and show that the 9/11 official story is ludicrously false is a diversion that suits the perpetrators just fine:

"Speculate, while we continue our wars of aggression planned long before 9/11, kill innocent civilians indiscriminately, steal oil, plan additional synthetic terror attacks under the guise of war-game exercises, make billions for war profiteers, destroy the constitution because the ‘terrorists’ hate our freedoms, terrorize the world with blatantly and stunningly fake propaganda,[20] commit impeachable offenses including treason, engage in other illegal/unethical activities, illegal wars, and our neo-conservative ‘project for a new American Century’."