'Conspiracy Nut' - Why I Wear That Badge With Pride

Submitted by Carol Brouillet;

'Conspiracy Nut' - Why I Wear That Badge With Pride by Douglas Herman

"...But to those angry, impassioned American patriots on the Left and Right, facts and physical laws must be bent and broken to support the insupportable. Although outraged by their government, a government of lies and liars, they inexplicably continue to support the government version of events pertaining to 9-11.

As if this government of cowards, none of whom ever tasted battle, this government of criminals, capable of destroying the Bill of Rights, this rogue government, capable of launching a phony war to kill 100,000 innocent Iraqis and 3,000 US servicemen in order to enrich its cronies, could not conspire to kill 3,000 New York civilians.

As if they couldn't.

Recently a noted Leftist, Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch.com, joined noted Washington gadfly, Doug Thompson of Capitol Hill Blue, joining the sizeable chorus of Rightwing government apologists, labeling anyone who disbelieves the US government version of the New York Massacre as "conspiracy nuts." Certainly the US government, together with the state infected mainstream media, must be really desperate if they've convinced the Leftists and bloggers to join the likes of Rightists Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly in the subversion of the truth about 9-11.

Additionally, some law professor on CHB, named Paul Campos, even called 911 skeptics "pathetic lunatics." Sorry, Paul; We in the 911 Truth Movement possess most, if not all, of the physical facts on our side. Indeed, in an unbiased court of law (If one could be found in America), your side would lose. I truly hope you teach law better than your knowledge of the laws of gravity indicates..."


We ourselves have allowed this to happen

The reason that debunkers get as far as they do is because the 9/11 truth movement is emphasizing the weak argument at the expense of the strong one.

The weak argument is the physical evidence. It is weak because Bush quickly destroyed it, leaving us with virtually nothing more than a bunch of photographs and videos. We are therefore reduced to photographic analysis. This is good for the debunkers because it is easy to muddy the water, to mobilize armies of tax-paid "experts," and to bait us with this futile argument, thereby turning attention away from what they don't want to discuss. Further, we know from recent information (Charles Goyette show, Alexander Cockburn's debunking article on Counterpunch) that debunkers are given access to photographic evidence which we cannot view. Debunkers know our weakenss, and continually bait us with the physical-evidence argument in order to draw our attention in that direction. Unfortunately, it's working. Everytime a new debunking article appears, hoards of truthers, frothing at the mouth, get drawn into arguing over minutiae, and the whole debate slumps into a morass of tangled claims about how hot the jet fuel burned, ad nauseam. Don't get me wrong -- the movement's experts have done a wonderful job with what they have to work with, it's just that they have next to nothing to work with. Thus much of the physical evidence argument turns out to be speculative in nature, and that is a very weak position.

The strong argument is the circumstantial evidence. This is what the debunkers do not want us to discuss, and that is why they constantly bait us with the towers. Debunkers do not want to talk about the oil-drugs-money nexus. They do not want to discuss why the timeline doesn't hold water even after five years (!) of tweaking. They do not want to discuss the money trail. They most assuredly do not want to discuss the multiple, simultaneous war games on the morning of 9/11 which paralyzed air defenses, because that will show why the "hijacked" aircraft were never intercepted. There is a mountain of such damning circumstantial evidence which has been already uncovered and cataloged by researchers. We just have to use it.

Sure, the towers were most likely demolished with explosives, but why allow ourselves to get sucked into endless arguments about why the concrete was pulverized? I watched David Ray Griffin on the BBC. He could have used that golden opportunity to show that the timeline doesn't hold water, but instead he pissed away those precious minutes talking about the towers. It's no wonder the journalists were skeptical!

In conclusion, let's change our strategy. Continue work on the physical evidence, but shift our emphasis to the circumstantial evidence. Debunkers keep harping on the towers and Pentagon because they know that is our weak spot. What were Cheney and Eberhart doing on the morning of 9/11? Running the war games? Now there's an angle we should be pursuing. And we should be pushing journalists to take this tack instead of getting all hot and bothered over their debunking articles.

all evidence is important.

all evidence is important. all of it should be put forward whenever possible.the media regularly ignores WTC7 for a reason........



Er...I was saying "amen" to

Er...I was saying "amen" to Rice Farmer. I can already see Flight 93 and the Pentagon effectively killing all we've worked for.

I agree

It's sure nice to be on the correct side of the 9/11 issue. I would just hate to have to argue the other side of the agument. It's just a matter of time till the perps, shills and just plain stupid people have to eat crow. For some of them it will more than just eating crow.

I wrote an email to Zmag

I wrote an email to Zmag which *featured* cockburns article.. I wrote to express my disgust they would feature such a piece - even if they disagree with the theories, using tactics like calling people "nuts" is really stooping to the level of Bill O'Reilly.

After him admitting that it's possible the theories are correct (and therefore not "nutty").. He stated "I don't think any good will come from this line of thinking"

my response was: is this to mean that "it could be true.. but if it is, the reaction we will get from a serious probing would be devastation?".. that it would be ridiculous to provoke "the Beast"?

his reply to this was:

"Look around. There are undeniably true things about what is going on now
and in the past that reveal the truth about society - not about some
cabal of a few people - but about the workings of our society as a
whole. "

So, basically the so-called left-gatekeepers are afraid... which I would say "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" and I feel people are generally good - that it's a matter of waking up and fixing the wrongs of this country - as is our Duty.