DEBUNKING911.COM; A SOPHISTICATED NEOCON PROPAGANDA SITE DESIGNED TO COUNTERACT THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT.
http://lataan.blogspot.com/2008/06/debunking911com-sophisticated-neocon.html
Monday, June 30, 2008
DEBUNKING911.COM; A SOPHISTICATED NEOCON PROPAGANDA SITE DESIGNED TO COUNTERACT THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT.
METHINKS THEY PROTESTETH TOO MUCH!A website calling itself ‘Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories’ seems to have certain characteristics that look suspiciously like neoconservative propaganda websites. Even the opening background colour is almost identical to the old Project for the New American Century website indicating, perhaps, that the same webmaster is behind this website.
debunking9/11.com is a very sophisticated, extensive and professionally put together website that clearly has had a lot of expensive expertise poured into it. It goes to extraordinary lengths to attempt to debunk the evidence that has presented itself on the internet over the last seven years as an alternative to the US government’s version of the events of 9/11, but – and this is where the site gives itself away – it doesn’t attempt to debunk just some aspects of the new evidence that has been presented, but it tries to debunk every bit of it. It is that characteristic that defines it as a propaganda site rather than a site that is scientifically objective with its arguments.
But what really gives it away is the rhetoric and tone of the narrative, which is presented in a pseudo-technical pseudo-academic way, but which is transparently intermingled with outright neoconservative propaganda which has nothing to do with the events of 9/11.
Take, for example, this on the ‘Osama bin Laden’ page of their website:
“Conspiracy theorists like to say ‘Some Arabs with box cutters couldn't have pulled this off.’ Let's forget for a minute how racist that statement is”.Firstly, of course, one needs to ask; what conspiracy theorists like to say ‘Some Arabs with box cutters couldn't have pulled this off’? Trying to cast those that doubt the US government’s official version of the events of 9/11 as ‘racists’ is a classic neoconservative tactic used because of the connotations of the word ‘racist’ has with ‘anti-Semitism’.
The other classic attribute that gives the website its distinctive neoconservative characteristic is the way it attempts to belittle and demonise those that advocate alternative scenarios to the events of 9/11. The website even has a page dedicated to attacking Professor Steven E. Jones and Professor David Ray Griffin as well as others that have put forward ideas that are not in line with the government’s version of events.
One has to ask who has paid for this professionally put together and very sophisticated yet transparently propagandising website. Only dedicated neoconservatives with a political agenda of trying to prevent the truth of the events of 9/11 being exposed would go to such great lengths as producing such an obvious propaganda website. One can only assume that those seeking the truth must be on to something for the neocons to put this much effort into trying to prevent the truth from being revealed.
posted by Damian Lataan at 8:42 PM
- mikezimmer's blog
- Login to post comments
FAQ from the Govt. Site
FAQ
Q: Why do you use the term "debunking" in your name. Doesn't that prove you already think you're right?
A: I use the term "Debunking" because I see evidence which points to conspiracy "Bunk" and I "Debunk" it. I find it Ironic that people in the "Truth" movement would ask this.
Q: What is Debunking 9/11's e-mail address?
A: debunk911@hotmail.com Please read the FAQ before sending any Email. All E-mail which is inflammatory or mindless will go straight to the junk folder. A select few will have the privilege of being added to my "Conspiracy Theorists hall of Fame".
Q: Why do you hide your identity?
A: It should be none of anyone's business who I am. If I'm right, the evidence will back me up. If I'm wrong the evidence will expose it the same as if you knew who I was.
Apparently this is evidence to conspiracy theorists that I'm a "government shill". I guess a massive conspiracy to murder 3000 people is easier to carry out than it would be for the government to create a fake id on a web site. (Incredible...)
Q: Who funds your site? Who pays you to do this? Are you paid by the government?
A: Anyone making the median income in America can easily afford to create a web site. Some web hosts charge as low as 4 dollars a month. No one "Funds" me and no one should need to fund conspiracy sites. I shouldn't have to shell out even 4 dollars a year, much less 4 dollars a month to expose these groups misinformation but I gladly do it. The only reason for those web sites to ask who funds me is to suggest I'm a government shill. That way you won't read any further. If you think I'm a government shill because I paid for this web site then I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand what's on it anyway.
So the question is, who funds the major conspiracy sites? Republican dirty tricks who want liberals to hate the government as much as they do? The book publishers? Conservative radio stations? The people who give donations? And how much goes into their pockets?
Q: Why don't you engage in public debate? Doesn't that mean you can't back up what you're saying?
A: What in the world do you think I'm doing on this web site? Am I not publicly debating the issue? Why should a hall filled with conspiracy theorists clapping at every utterance from one of the "scholars" change the facts on this site?
In a somewhat whiney attack, conspiracy theorists have come to the conclusion that not putting an "s" at the end of Conspiracy theorists is some sort of evidence of Controlled Demolition. This and other attacks on my grammar are obviously an attempt at character assassination. If they paint me as less than "scholarly" then maybe people won't look at the evidence in the same way. Unfortunately they know this type of tactic works to some extent. Ironically though, character assassination is one of the Bush administration's favorite tactics. It works for them, too. Remember Richard Clarke and Scott Ritter? They haven't been shown to be wrong but some Republicans still think that Scott Ritter was a pedophile and Richard Clarke made everything up just because he wanted to sell books. I'm in good company.
Haha...
...I visited the website. Funny stuff.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence
The FAQ is none too sophisticated
Can't be bothered reading anything on the site itself.
Let me know if one of these "debunkers" is able to substantiate a single element of the official conspiracy theory. Just. One.