Guardian follows up with a hit piece

Just noticed this insulting column published two days ago in the Guardian, after Peter Tatchell's excellent piece appeared last week. Comments will probably be shut down soon since they usually stay open for 2 – 3 days, so hurry if you want to post. (I'd suggest being polite, reasoned and intelligent, of course.)

The troof is out there

His final advice demonstrates how those who are trying to marginalize people who question 9/11 into an us-and-them dichotomy (his piece falls into the classical mode in this respect) are able to use the loud-mouthed "we know they are guilty and if you don't admit it you're blind or complicit" mentality some "truthers" can't restrain, to persuade others to dismiss us outright:

"This seems to me to be what distinguishes sceptics from troofers. Sceptics should probe for "inconsistencies in the official narrative", but then apply a "balance of probabilities" test with the alternative explanations on offer. Troofers demand "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" because they already have another view fixed in their minds. Most of us already know the telltale signs when someone tells us that they are "increasingly troubled by some of the details about how many people actually died in the Holocaust" and shut the conversation down immediately. I think that we probably need to start treating 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a similar way."

We can learn from the way they cast the movement. More:

"The problem with debating "troofers" is that you have to be prepared to work through many levels of assertion and rebuttal. First they will point to some inconsistencies in the reporting of the initial incidents. Then they will raise some technical issues to "prove" that the official account cannot be true: at what temperature does steel melt, for example, or what does a vehicle look like after it has been hit by various types of ordinance? After you have dealt with these, they come back with the killer, "people are lying to us" theory, which it is almost impossible to refute since, by believing the official explanation, you have, by definition, become part of the conspiracy.

"Not all troofers are mad, but there is a point at which it is no longer worthwhile debating with them. This might be summarised as when you get to the "so what?" question in the debate. Often this coincides with ad hominem accusations where the person who is pointing out some logical inconsistencies in the conspiracy theory is imputed to be, therefore, an agent of the forces of evil in the troofers' imagination."

Response

Moronic bit of mindless slander.

Hey Guardian, riddle me this. Investigate and explain just ONE ANOMALY that happened on 9/11, and I'll leave you alone.

Here it is. CBS News, Dan Rather reports a VAN FULL OF EXPLOSIVES STOPPED AT ONRAMP TO GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE. Two suspects arrested by FBI, truck full of explosives seized.

The JERUSALEM POST also prints the story, same details, apparently a "terrorist" attack directed against the bridge.

Never is this story discussed again!

No mention in 9/11 Commission Report.

No mention in congressional Joint Inquiry.

You go explain on the pages of your newspaper how a truck bomb stopped by FBI on 9/11 at the George Washington Bridge could just not be newsworthy to ever discuss at all.

Dan Rather, still mirrored on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up0Bvwwx9hA&e

"Two suspects are in FBI custody after a truckload of explosives were discovered around the George Washington Bridge. That bridge links New York to New Jersey over the Hudson River. Whether the discovery of those explosives had anything to do with other events today is unclear, but the FBI, has two suspects in hand, said the truckload of explosives, enough explosives were in the truck to do great damage to the George Washington Bridge..."

Jerusalem Post article mirrored:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/jpost.html

" (08:45) Car bomb found on George Washington Bridge
American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge connecting New York and New Jersey.
The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge.
Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported."

Carl Cameron's investigation of Israeli spying in USA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo&e

The Israeli "art students" and "movers"
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/06/israeli-art-students-and-mo...

Israeli agents detained in New York/New Jersey on 9/11
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/03/limits-of-ketchams-counterp...

Response to Monbiot/Guardian, and Monbiot's lack of actual facts:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-george-monbiot-these-are...

"Troof?"

That's worthy of The Guardian?

You demean yourselves leaving wankers like this on the payroll, while they're busy disgracing your image, and shattering your credibility.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.