52 online
 
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 19 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

The Suppressed September 11th

By       (Page 2 of 3 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   12 comments
Message John Doraemi

Anyone pushing the idea that "no planes" hit the World Trade Center on 9/11, really isn't worth a second of your valuable time. They usually headline their fantasies as "TV Fakery," or some similar "fake," or "hoax" analogy.

Similarly, those peddling the "Directed Energy Weapon" theory (gibberish), or "space beams," or "energy beams", or however they phrase it, are yanking your chain. These are not serious scientists, and they are not intrested in the "truth" about anything whatsoever, despite their posturing and apparent inclusion in "the truth movement."

There has been a raging disinformation war regarding these attacks for six years now. So much sewage has been put out on the Internet -- in order to discredit the Internet itself, and those who rely upon it -- that it is very, very difficult to sort out the bonafide facts from the "whack job" "conspiracy theories" that are nearly everywhere.

If that makes me sound as if I support the "official theory" as posited in the 9/11 Commission Report, then you haven't been paying very close attention.

Some of these disinformaiton artists are obvious, such as Nico Haupt, who has firmly and maniacally pushed the "no planes" nonsense for quite a while.

Others are more subtle, and more formidable as opponents. Dr. James Fetzer could be the real thing, at first glance, someone pushing for "truth." But, once you see Fetzer's behind the scenes activity, attacking the character of people like Dr. Steven Jones, and Fetzer's embrace of the "no planes" and "space beams" theories, his credibility begins to crumble.

Another character to be wary of is "Fintan Dunne," who has basically called most of the genuine 9/11 investigators "CIA Fakes," on his website. This divide and conquer strategy appears to have come straight from Langley, and manifests itself in a number of places in "the movement."

Recently Webster Tarpley has opened up a front in the divide and conquer battleground. Many were in awe of Tarpley's impressive rhetorical skills and prolific talent for writing about 9/11. But, was Tarpley's work non-fiction? In 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism, Tarpley's highly selling book on September 11th, he pushes the "directed energy weapons" theory (at the end of chapter 6), that a giant laser/maser what-have-you, brought down the Twin Towers.

If someone repeats this "theory" to the mainstream journalist crowd, they are going to look like an imbecile. They are going to be given the cold shoulder. They are going to distance even the best intentioned reporters from listening any further.

Long term disinformation peddler The Webfairy, aka. "Rosalie Grable," is someone to avoid like the plague. Many bogus Photoshopped hoaxes have originated there. Webfairy is linked to several other disinfo types, and to a website called "terrorize.dk."

A new website called "911researchers.com" exists to trash talk those who reject the "no planes" and "directed energy weapon" disinformation. You can see many of their low-level parrot troops at open message boards where 9/11 is discussed. They generally reduce the quality of discussion to nil.

 

"THE BEDUNKERS"

I have focused upon false "truther" sites. There is also a gigantic "debunker" community that regularly attacks the very notion that anything could have been amiss on 9/11.

Not everything the "debunkers" say is in fact false. Some are intelligent, though misquided by dogmatism (that the US government couldn't/wouldn't have done it, a priori). An "a priori" argument is "existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience, as a faculty or character trait."

One of the most referenced of these debunker sites is 911myths.com, which has done some meticulous research in their goal of discrediting specific claims made by some 9/11 skeptics. You should investigate this site to see what the other side is saying. They have exposed a number of claims as weak or poorly supported. Other claims that the 911myths.com website has made are themselves poor and/or incorrect.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

John Doraemi Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog: http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

 
Contact EditorContact Editor
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

No George Monbiot, These Are The Facts of September 11th 2001

9/11: Robert Fisk's Skepticism vs. Manuel Garcia Jr.s Shameless Propaganda

Al Gore Doesn't Accept the 9/11 Cover Up, So Why Do You?

Has Al Gore's CO2 Theory Fizzled Out? (part one)

The Suppressed September 11th

Debating "Skeptic Magazine" on September 11th Issues

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend