Gwynne Dyer

Help knarlyknight, the guy is surrounded!

Some discussions at have involved one blogger (knarlyknight) defending 911 skepticism against a group of intelligent, misinformed believers of the official conspiracy theory. I think he's done a great job, but maybe he could use some help or expressions of support from experienced 911bloggers?

Anyone willing to drop by, read the comments, and make a few comments of their own in the spirit of 911 truth?

I realize this is a low gain approach to activism, but it seems that knarlyknight is making some inroads there. Getting the folks from onto the 911 truth side would be good. Go to the comment section under the most recent blog: How Bad Is It?

At the least it is entertaining to observe how he takes the discussion from war and deception and relates it back to 911 truth and then holds his own against all the others who do not agree. Some of the older entries are also good that way, especially the one titled Dyer On Loose Change.

Et tu, Gwynne Dyer?

Gwynne Dyer is one of the best minds out there when it comes to military history, and the history of war. He is also remarkably prescient at times when it comes to short-term projection of tactical scenarios. However, it's pretty clear that he knows next to nothing about 9/11 skepticism, but he still felt a need to write this crappy hit piece about Loose Change. My comments in red. -r.)

That makes 10,000 sworn to 9/11 silence

Growing obsession with 9/11 doc’s theories only detracts from Bush’s real crimes (Because Gwynne Dyer says so! If indeed 9/11 was a complex psychological operation designed to trigger a knee-jerk fascist military response to initiate the “Global War on Terror” – then the “real crimes” that Dyer alludes to are a bunch of bat-squeeze by comparison. It’s not “obsession” it’s a mass awakening via the new medium of the internet. Deal with it.)


Gwynne Dyer: That makes 10,000 sworn to 9/11 silence

Popular journalist Gwynne Dyer has joined the likes George Monbiot, Alex Cockburn, and other establishment leftists. Today in the New Zealand Herald he applies the good ol' "it would take too many conspirators" argument against 9/11 Truth (note, also, the 'viral' metaphor):

"The 9/11 conspiracy theory is back, in a much more virulent form, and normally sane people are being taken in by it. I get half a dozen earnest emails every day telling me I must see a film called Loose Change.

It has been around in various versions for almost two years, but it now seems to be gathering converts faster than ever.

Well, I have seen it, and I concede that it is a much slicker, more professional product than other 9/11 conspiracy films, and therefore more seductive.

But the argument is pure paranoid fantasy and it is rotting people's brains.

There have always been two versions of the 9/11 conspiracy theory. The lesser version held that the Bush Administration had advance intelligence of al Qaeda's plans but chose to ignore the warning because the attacks suited its purposes.