Greatest Failures of the 911 Truth Movement, as seen by a 911 Truther

(Cross-posted at JREF, here.)

This was inspired by a snarkier, debunker-laden thread called The Greatest Fiascos of the 9-11 "Truth" Movement

Here's my list:

1) Failure to investigate 911 hijacker associations, where such investigations require no state power, whatsoever. Indeed, the failure is worse than that - there was never (AFAIK) even any attempt to organize a fundraiser for such investigations. I'm thinking particularly of verifying and/or dis-confirming the work of Daniel Hopsicker (, but also looking into, e.g., who the hijackers were schmoozing with in NJ, the reports suggesting Saudi intelligence handlers of 2 of the hijackers in San Diego, etc.

2) Political naivete. In particular, no attempt (AFAIK) by anybody to explain to 911 Truther Community the enormity of the real task, which would become more obvious if attention was paid to the repeated, long-lasting failure of the peace movement (which is 'non-strange', to boot, unlike 911 Truth) to achieve anything substantial, other than hastening the withdrawal from Vietnam. Or, the lack of results of many other high-minded activist groups.

I understand the psychological predisposition to avoid looking at this, especially for the true believers who genuinely believe that 911 is some sort of Rosetta stone for destroying government corruption and ending US-created or sponsored Middle East wars. However, it's not at all realistic. By analogy, even if a new procedure is discovered to operate on a hitherto inoperable cancer, it won't do you much good if you undergo the procedure after the cancer has metasticized.

Also, if you conclude (as I have), the the root problem is systemic corruption, there are not that many great ideas floating around for how to deal with that. E.g., David Sirota has written what is probably a great book (Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--And How We Take It Back ) giving not just a good overview of various aspects of corruption of the US government, but chock full of good remedies (from a high level policy perspective). However, the book is notably weak on how to get Sirota's great ideas implemented, when implementation requires passage of laws through a Congress that is already corrupted, and with an enormous lobbying apparatus already in place.

3) "911 was an inside job" slogan. This is related to 2). However, it's particularly off-putting, and so gets special mention. While this slogan may make for great theater for Alex Jones, and have great shock value, if you want to grow a truth movement that has political teeth, I don't see where being so strident about a conclusion (as opposed to a call for an investigation which could lead to this conclusion) makes much sense. As a form of protest, directed directly at the government, I can see it, but directed at the public, it has probably scared more people away than attracted them.

4) Failure to 'bifurcate' the movement, with one branch being educational/activist, and the other overtly political, but with an insider emphasis. One branch should have gone further into other false-flag operations in history, in terms of reaching out to the public. (See 6), below.) I.e., it would have not only embraced the 'hi-strangeness' aspect of 911, but sought to make it less 'strange', over time, by showing how murderous and duplicitous various aspects of the US government have been. I.e., teaching about additional 'high-strangeness' issues. You can think of this as the 'Alex Jones' approach, but without the bullhorn, simplistic reductionism to an overarching conspiracy, and hype, and with better and/or more careful (read: qualified) documentation. More Peter Dale Scott, less Alex Jones, but keep the videos coming, please.

The other branch would have run from any open embrace of any high-strangeness topic, including 911. It would, instead, have concerned itself with reforming the Democratic and Republican parties from the bottom up. (Hopefully enlightened by knowledge of what politics is really like. See here and here, e.g.).

Back-channel communication, kept out of the public spotlight, is OK, but that's it. This branch could, had they started earlier (and can still do so, now), have helped the Working Families Party get even more better people elected to NYC government (they've been successful without help from 911 Truth activists). And, accomplishing that, they could have found more sympathetic ears within NYC government who would not be afraid to fight for a local re-investigation of 911.

5) Failure to 'force the issue' with respect to the recent nano-thermite paper by Harrit, et. al. 911 Truthers could, collectively, have forced recognition of the Harrit paper at universities that have bona-fide researchers in nano-thermite, via taking out ads in the school newspapers. That would make it far, far more likely that at least some of those researchers would go on the record with their opinion of the Harrit paper. It's all well and good that the co-authors of the Harrit paper support their work, but that's standard.

I don't know what the final opinion of qualified critics re the nano-thermite paper would be, but the paper deserves more than obscurity. It deserves either to be seminal, or to be debunked. It's currently in limbo, not doing anybody much good, as far as I can tell.

Another major point, which I have detected being corrected, to some degree over the past few years, (e.g., at is:

6) Failure to teach context, by which I mean, teach about other false flags operations. Especially Operation Gladio, which was shown in court to have involved the murder of innocent Italian citizens. However, as per 4), it's not really been fully integrated into 911 Truth actions.

Besides helping the Working Families Party

Activists could work to make fusion voting legal. Without fusion voting being legal in NY, Working Families Party would probably be quite marginal.

I don't know the exact number, but I think fusion voting is only legal in a handful of states.

Hey Meta...

That is a good list. JREF can prove useful at times (like being an outside critique)

3) I posted a message on the UK 9/11 forum board last week on why the "inside job" slogan won't help much.

Maybe the idea of concentrating on the history of false flag operations will sow the seeds??????

5) I sent an email to Mr Harrit asking whether the paper has been independently peer-reviewed but he didn't confirm it. I don't intend to put any information on my site about the thermite until someone can convincingly pursuade me that this is what has been found in the dust.

I still consider it "strong evidence" rather than "proof" (IMO)

Failing to reach progressive thinkers

via promoting conclusions and speculation as fact.

In Their Own Words
The Truth and Lies of 9/11

You got that right...

And don't forget the introduction of catch phrases like "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB," "FALSE FLAG ATTACK," "BLACK OPS," "NEW WORLD ORDER," as opposed to "SUPPORT THE 9/11 FAMILIES," "ASK QUESTIONS, DEMAND ANSWERS," "SUPPORT THE 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS," and "EXPOSE THE 9/11 COVER-UP."

Sourcing holocaust deniers, racists, and bigots, and allowing them to speak at conferences, and represent 9/11 Truth.

Putting all of our eggs into one basket. A basket that still sounds crazy to a lot of people.

People promoting debunked theories.

People like Webster Tarpley, Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barrett, Alex Jones, and Morgan Reynolds getting on the mainstream television to promote their theories instead of being 9/11 Truth Activists like they claim to be. I never heard any of them say "support the 9/11 families" on the TV did you? I never heard any of them explain why the 9/11 Commission was a farce did you? Neither did I.

People relying on movies to tell them what's going on rather than doing their own research.

People relying on others to tell them the "truth" about 9/11 instead of reading for themselves.

I could go on.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?


pls let me know what you think about this elizabeth kucinich vid with map

sugarcoated 9/11 truth with map added at the end

here at 911blogger were in a hard core of researchers of a certain set of topics- it might seem repetitive to send a simple message to the public but i believe someone completely new to this needs a hook- a pretty face, a catchline, a videogenic clip

Elizabeth Kucinich is stunning

I'm not particularly attracted to redheads, but she makes my knees weak.

Does that answer your question? What was your question? Oh, yeah....

Seriously, though, you didn't write a very clear post. Apparently, you mostly are interested in how to "hook" somebody into 911 Truth writings, videos, and arguments. However, that question doesn't interest me, too much. We are dealing with a systemically corrupt entity. The bureaucracy is corrupt, the Presidents are corrupt, the Legislators are corrupt, and the courts are corrupt.

The real question (i.e., the most important one, and thus the most interesting one) is "How do we change this? How do we get honest people into government, who speak the truth and seek what's best for the public?" Thus, a question that you should ask yourself is "How can I best guide people into fixing the problems with government, after I convince them that the problems are so serious?"

I don't want to get into a long answer, sorry. But I will say that I predict that vote-bloc technology will make this an easier problem to solve than most probably would have expected. Whether an empowered public will exercise power responsibly remains to be seen. (It's possible to be an honest and life-affirmative government, but also one that stupidly panders to greed and short-sightedness.) One things' for sure - the sort of elites that have been guiding the US either have a death wish, or they are horribly stupid, or horribly short-sighted. Or some combination of these. I don't have a whole heck of a lot of faith in "Joe Six Pack", and have some fear of a mob-ocracy. But I just can't believe that a populist-driven government would be anywhere near as bad as what we have now.

It's good to hear Elizabeth speak well of Ron Paul, and I'm pretty sure that I remember Ron Paul speaking well of Dennis Kucinich. (Unlike some of their admirers, unfortunately). I think both men both admire each other's honesty and faithfulness to their ideals, even though their ideals differ substantially. I would have voted for either one in a heartbeat, if I thought they had a chance at getting elected.

BTW, there was a recent article on OpenLeft which guesstimated that if Rand Paul (son or Ron) voted like his Dad, he might be worth supporting (by progressives):

Second, if Rand is anything like his father--and he certainly seems to be--then even if he were to win the general election, he would defect and vote with Democrats more often than any Republican Senator outside the state of Maine. On the votes that matter, Rand Paul's father, Ron, votes with progressives more often than any other Republican in Congress-- except for Rodney Alexander who was a Democrat until mid-2004 (Ralph Hall, third among Republicans who vote with progressives, was a Democrat until 1995). With a lifetime progressive crucial votes ranking of 23.50%, Paul even leaves supposed Republican moderates like Mike Castle (15.40%) and Mark Kirk (10.30%) in the dust. Paul towers over life-long Republicans when it comes to voting with Democrats.

One last thought: I suggested years ago that Elisabeth Kucinich could be a 'spoke-goddess' for the Progressive Democrats of America. I.e., she could be the face of the PDA. Alas, this has not come to pass.

Enough of the Farrakhan already

Nearly every post on blogger is being spammed by Douglas Hilton

Farrakhan as far as I'm concerned is a charismatic leader, his information is culled from many sources including far right racists, personally I don't need charismatic leaders and I'll do my own research, we are our own leaders, this kind of worship is what we, the human race, should be moving away from in our (r)evolution.

Ok Doug you've made your point (too many times IMO) it's getting boring.