The Problem with the 9/11 Truth Movement
There are way too many egos, too many weird personalities, and too little rigorous thinking. And almost definitely there has been some infiltration of the movement by people who may have perverted agendas-- in particular trying to discredit 9/11 truth by spouting nonsense. Most tragically, there is too much infighting.
Read Brian Salter's blog for a good sampling of what I am talking about, although this is by no means the best set of examples. But from what I have been reading, almost all the major people in 9/11 truth seem to hate each other.
This problem with the egos and infighting seems very likely to doom the whole 9/11 truth movement to wackodom, or at least irrelevancy.
Certainly there is nothing wrong with intellectual disagreements about issues. The problem is when it gets personal-- for instance calling Mike Ruppert a megalomaniac.
In particular, Mike Ruppert seems to be a controversial figure, but he also is a smart guy who has made a lot of important contributions. I personally haven't been bothered by him, though I haven't interacted with him personally. I listened to a radio broadcast of him talk, and it was excellent. He is a very interesting, engaging speaker who was also funny and charming. But I'm sure he can be abrasive to people who rub him the wrong way.
I do have a couple of critical things about Ruppert's work however--
1) While "Crossing the Rubicon" is an extremely important work regarding 9/11, the problem is the book is much too dense and meanders too much. Parts of the book are really good reading while many other parts are very difficult to get through. Because of this, I still haven't read the whole book-- mostly I have just read the key chapters regarding what happened on 9/11. While Ruppert may have felt that he needed to get every bit of detail of the background and history of 9/11 into the book, I think it was counterproductive. I do not think the case he has made for 9/11 is as convincing as he seems to think it is-- I do not think it would hold up in court (on its own, anyway).
2) I find his analysis of Peak Oil much, much too dire and apocalyptic. Reading the Peak Oil section in "Crossing the Rubicon" basically made me lose interest in reading the book for a while-- it was needlessly depressing. Dave McGowan has an interesting take on Ruppert and the Peak oil theory (which I don't necessarily subscribe to either-- I imagine the truth is somewhere in between McGowan and Ruppert).
As far as other 9/11 truth people, I think the following people are very counterproductive to the movement--
1) people who think that no planes hit the WTC (the "no-planers")-- Scott Loughrey of (9/11 hoax) and his ilk,
2) people who strongly promote the theory that the planes that impacted the WTC had pods and shot missiles-- e.g. Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll 9/11 (linked on this site),
3) people who relentlessly promote the idea that something besides a plane hit the Pentagon-- this is many different people, but most notable is the millionaire Jimmy Walter, who has been going on TV talking about this. I myself am not totally convinced that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but I also think this issue is a bit of a trap because we just can't say conclusively either way right now. Thus, I think it is better not to promote this theory too strongly.
Perhaps what is really needed for 9/11 truth is to make it into some kind of scientific society, with defined and rigorous standards for the quality of research and critical thinking.
Read Brian Salter's blog for a good sampling of what I am talking about, although this is by no means the best set of examples. But from what I have been reading, almost all the major people in 9/11 truth seem to hate each other.
This problem with the egos and infighting seems very likely to doom the whole 9/11 truth movement to wackodom, or at least irrelevancy.
Certainly there is nothing wrong with intellectual disagreements about issues. The problem is when it gets personal-- for instance calling Mike Ruppert a megalomaniac.
In particular, Mike Ruppert seems to be a controversial figure, but he also is a smart guy who has made a lot of important contributions. I personally haven't been bothered by him, though I haven't interacted with him personally. I listened to a radio broadcast of him talk, and it was excellent. He is a very interesting, engaging speaker who was also funny and charming. But I'm sure he can be abrasive to people who rub him the wrong way.
I do have a couple of critical things about Ruppert's work however--
1) While "Crossing the Rubicon" is an extremely important work regarding 9/11, the problem is the book is much too dense and meanders too much. Parts of the book are really good reading while many other parts are very difficult to get through. Because of this, I still haven't read the whole book-- mostly I have just read the key chapters regarding what happened on 9/11. While Ruppert may have felt that he needed to get every bit of detail of the background and history of 9/11 into the book, I think it was counterproductive. I do not think the case he has made for 9/11 is as convincing as he seems to think it is-- I do not think it would hold up in court (on its own, anyway).
2) I find his analysis of Peak Oil much, much too dire and apocalyptic. Reading the Peak Oil section in "Crossing the Rubicon" basically made me lose interest in reading the book for a while-- it was needlessly depressing. Dave McGowan has an interesting take on Ruppert and the Peak oil theory (which I don't necessarily subscribe to either-- I imagine the truth is somewhere in between McGowan and Ruppert).
As far as other 9/11 truth people, I think the following people are very counterproductive to the movement--
1) people who think that no planes hit the WTC (the "no-planers")-- Scott Loughrey of (9/11 hoax) and his ilk,
2) people who strongly promote the theory that the planes that impacted the WTC had pods and shot missiles-- e.g. Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll 9/11 (linked on this site),
3) people who relentlessly promote the idea that something besides a plane hit the Pentagon-- this is many different people, but most notable is the millionaire Jimmy Walter, who has been going on TV talking about this. I myself am not totally convinced that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but I also think this issue is a bit of a trap because we just can't say conclusively either way right now. Thus, I think it is better not to promote this theory too strongly.
Perhaps what is really needed for 9/11 truth is to make it into some kind of scientific society, with defined and rigorous standards for the quality of research and critical thinking.
posted by spooked at 9:47 AM
2 Comments:
"I think the following people are very counterproductive to the movement ... people who relentlessly promote the idea that something besides a plane hit the Pentagon"
If a plane hit the pentagon then what happened to the wings?
I agree the Pentagon hit is fishy. I don't know what happened to the wings. But they may have partially blown up and partially entered the building. The problem is we just can't say for sure what hit the pentagon-- and we can't rule out flight 77.
Thus, the key word I used is "relentlessly"--- since to push this issue too much is counterproductive when ther are so many other stronger points on which to question the official 9/11 story and which point to US government complicity.
Post a Comment
<< Home