Tuesday, February 20, 2007

George Monbiot responds, calls us 'conspiracy idiots'

George Monbiot really has gone the way of Doug Thompson.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2017005,00.html

These conspiracy idiots are a boon for Bush and Blair as they destroy the movements some of us have spent years building


Aww, poor Monbiot whines because people want to indict Bush and Blair for their real crimes and won't listen to establishment opposition like Monbiot anymore. But as Chomsky said, who cares?

'You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the new world order ... bought and paid for." "Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and special branch recruit agents?" "Shill, traitor, sleeper", "leftwing gatekeeper", "accessory after the fact", "political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all".

These are a few of the measured responses to my article, a fortnight ago, about the film Loose Change, which maintains that the United States government destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Having spent years building up my leftwing credibility on behalf of my paymasters in MI5, I've blown it. I overplayed my hand, and have been exposed, like Bush and Cheney, by a bunch of kids with laptops. My handlers are furious.


I might add that you're also a drama queen and a phony intellectual who thinks that calling people disagreeing with the official story 'conspiracy idiots' is a 'measured response', even though it plays into the same line of logic as the Bushists who call criticism of Bush and his wars 'anti-patriotic' and 'anti-American', the Zionists who call criticism of Israel 'anti-Semitic', and the Democrats who tell people that calling Bush out for his fraudulent elections and demanding his impeachment would 'hurt the progressive movement' and 'scare the voters'.

You've blown your credibility, deservedly, because after years of professional journalism, you wrote a poorly researched article full of stupidities, ad hominem attacks, strawman attacks and repeated the canned pseudoscience fed to the public over and over again about the alleged psychological motivations of 'conspiracy theorists', with the expectation to detract people superficial enough to swallow your tripe from our research. And that, with the purpose of getting people to ignore those important issues, is what makes you an 'accessory after the fact'.

I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents.

I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a longstanding plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis.


But you couldn't believe that those people ruthless enough to send more than 3000 people to their deaths in a war based on lies would have the nerve to kill their own citizens. And obviously, the fact that they stated the need for a 'New Pearl Harbor' one year before 9/11 merely meant that they took advantage of 9/11, but couldn't possibly have been complicit.

But none of this is sufficient. To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the twin towers with explosives without attracting attention and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception. It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes and induce them all to have kept their mouths shut, for ever.


The planting of explosives in the towers didn't attract attention? Never mind the testimony of Scott Forbes who witnessed power downs and an entire floor being shut down and strangers walking around the building with cables, amongst other things.

As for the other points, they are already addressed in my comments that I contributed to the Debunking-BBC article.

In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy.


Monbiot restates again the old, tired line that conspirators have to be 'all-powerful' to carry out conspiracies. Apparently it's not enough for him that this point was already addressed in his previous hit piece, and addressed over and over again in response to dozens of other propaganda pieces.

Again, the fact that their conspiracy is falling apart and being exposed left and right is testimony to the fact that the Bush cabal is not 'all-seeing and all-powerful', as were nor the Soviets and Nazi Germany.

Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues - climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality - are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress, that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy, that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish.


Have you ever thought about the possibility that you're the one destroying the movement by limiting inquiry about the extent of their crimes and controlling the opposition? You really think that exposing a government, supported by that same corporate elite, that murders almost 3,000 people to justify an imperial agenda, and raising awareness about the fact that governments have been pulling off such tricks since the beginning of times, is less important than climate change and the Iraq war? You really think that the deaths of 3,000 people and their grieving families are unworthy of a true investigation because you would rather focus on vague issues such as 'nuclear proliferation' and 'inequality'?

The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political fights.


A group that has been snowballing for the past few years, exposing hundreds of anomalies with the official 9/11 story, composing dozens of documentary films and started hundreds of sites, and gets poll approvals of over a third of Americans and higher in other countries, to the point that you feel the obligation to write two incensed articles filled with personal attacks and (deservedly) get hundreds of vitriolic emails in response, is what you think sees itself as 'powerless'?

Let me give you an example. The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts on the Guardian Comment is Free website, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious. The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted 467. On the same day the Guardian published my article about a genuine, demonstrable conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to Britain's biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE Systems. It drew 60 responses. The members of the 9/11 cult weren't interested. If they had been, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.


And I suppose that the thousands of people who have been protesting in New York and London facing police with machine guns is what you call doing nothing?

Poor Monbiot, nobody reads your articles anymore because you won't cover about the real issues, so you have to pen hit pieces bashing our investigations and calling us a 'cult' to get attention. Maybe people haven't looked at your story for the simple reasons that the public already knows about corporate espionage, especially Bush and Blair's wiretaps and elsewhere, and about the corruption of arms manufacturers. That particular incident also did not directly result in the deaths of thousands of people, and justified the casualties of millions of people in imperial wars.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its horde of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the "truth" movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don't exist, they can't fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow.


A laughably hypocritical accusation, given your own whitewash of the 9/11 issue in favour of your other pet issues which are already being discussed at length by establishment academics. Apparently it doesn't occur to you that a government willing to kill 3,000 of its own people might be a far scarier, more urgent and dangerous problem than 'inequality', which has been a problem since the beginning of civilisation.

By the way, false flag operations is one of the tools used by the elite to maintain their positions of power; if we are to combat 'inequality' and the war in Iraq, then it might be a good idea to address some of the root. But you don't really care about that, do you, because you're not the one holding signs and facing armed police officers and putting your credibility and reputation at stake; you hate us because you're more interested in holding on to your cushy job penning establishment-approved articles than finding the truth, and you're complaining because we're taking your spotlight instead of playing along.

Many of those who posted responses on Comment is Free contend that Loose Change (which was neatly demolished in the BBC's film The Conspiracy Files on Sunday night) is a poor representation of the conspiracists' case. They urge us instead to visit websites like 911truth.org, physics911.net and 911scholars.org, and to read articles by the theology professor David Ray Griffin and the physicist Steven E Jones.


Thanks for pointing out to us that BBC demolished Loose Change. Too bad it got exposed as a poorly researched hit piece by three or four articles (including our own) a day after and even before the film went on air. Guy Smith, the producer of the show, had to defend himself on Alex Jones' show and got his ass handed to him.

Concerned that I might have missed something, I have now done all those things, and have come across exactly the same concatenation of ill-attested nonsense as I saw in Loose Change. In all these cases you will find wild supposition raised to the status of incontrovertible fact, rumour and confusion transformed into evidence, selective editing, the citation of fake experts, the dismissal of real ones. Doubtless I will now be told that these are not the true believers: I will need to dive into another vat of tripe to get to the heart of the conspiracy.


Apparently those dozens of professors and government insiders, including the top Bin Laden expert who now publicly states that the Osama confession video was a fake. But only the ones supporting your biases towards the 9/11 events, apparently, are 'real' experts.

The 9/11 truthers remind me of nothing so much as the climate change deniers, cherry-picking their evidence, seizing any excuse for ignoring the arguments of their opponents. Witness the respondents to my Loose Change column who maintain that the magazine Popular Mechanics, which has ripped the demolition theories apart, is a government front. They know this because one of its editors, Benjamin Chertoff, is the brother/nephew/first cousin of the US homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff. (They are, as far as Benjamin can discover, unrelated, but what does he know?)


Actually, we don't ignore Popular Mechanics because it's a government front, but because it's been debunked over and over again.

Benjamin may say all he wants that he doesn't believe he's related to Michael Chertoff, but his mother doesn't agree with him.

Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements. If I were Bush or Blair, nothing would please me more than to see my opponents making idiots of themselves, while devoting their lives to chasing a phantom. But as a controlled asset of the new world order, I would say that, wouldn't I? It's all part of the plot.


Whatever the Levellers and the alleged 'millenarian fantasies' were, contrarily to your chicken little scare tactics, it does not look like the 9/11 truth movement is ready to die soon, considering that the numbers of sites debunking the 9/11 official story are growing exponentially and far surpass the number of sites supporting it.

We don't need you to sarcastically admit to being an agent of the New World Order, because not merely your support of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, but also the sophistic nature of your hit piece, exposes you as a propagandist. But we would say that, wouldn't we, because after all we're just a bunch of 'conspiracy idiots'.

EDIT: it turns out that Monbiot had a rather different opinion of the 9/11 events in 2001:

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2007/02/monbiot-and-9-11.html

"The more evidence US intelligence presents...the less credible the story becomes.

"First there was the car. A man had informed the police, we were told, that he'd had a furious argument with some suspicious looking Moslems in the parking lot at Boston airport. He led the investigators to the car, in which they found a copy of the Koran and a flight manual in Arabic (Flight manuals are 'always' in English), showing that these were the fundamentalists who had hijacked the planes.

"Now flying an aeroplane is not one of these things you learn in the back of a car on the way to the airport. Either you know how to do it or you don't.
"Leaving the Koran unattended, a Moslem friend tells me, is considered sinful.

"And if you were about to perpetrate one of the biggest terrorist outrages the world has ever seen, would you draw attention to yourself by arguing over a parking place?

"Then there is the passport. The security services claim that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was extracted from the rubble of the World Trade Centre. This definitive identification might help them to track the rest of the network.

"We are being asked to believe that a paper document from the cockpit of the first plane - the epicentre of an inferno which vapourised steel - survived the fireball and fell to the ground almost intact."When presented with material like this, I can't help suspecting that intelligence agents have assembled the theory first, then sought the facts required to fit it...

"I think WE MIGHT HAVE SOME CAUSE TO REGARD THE NEW EVIDENCE AGAINST BIN LADEN WITH A MEASURE OF SCEPTICISM."


So this, Monbiot, makes you worse than a New World Order asset or an accessory after the fact, but a coward, a traitor and a collaborator. Like Doug Thompson and Noam Chomsky, you have now lost your credibility and you have deserved it. When the New World Order gets toppled (because unlike you, we are not cowards), you will be held to account for aiding the Bush and Blair regimes.

9 Comments:

At 8:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

George Monbiot should go the way of Julius Streicher, the Nazi propagandist: hanged by the neck as a war criminal.

 
At 11:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

POWERFUL....


Thank you.

 
At 3:26 AM, Anonymous banyan said...

There was more venom in your response than in a King Cobra bite, Kev.

You evade most of Monbiot's salient points in favour of ones where you think you can score a point or two. But if fails to impress and again and again you prove his points rather than your own...

For instance, Monbiot asserts that if you dissent from the 911-truther consensus that Cheney et al were diabolically clever enought to bring off this increasingly complex and complicated plot "you are a traitor and a spy."

You dispute this by pointing out that the presumed conspirators must not be all powerful because they are being found out -- a curious assertion given the plethora of conflicting "truther" versions of the 911 event -- but at the end prove Monbiot right with your vicious conclusion: "When the New World Order gets toppled (because unlike you, we are not cowards), you will be held to account for aiding the Bush and Blair regimes."

Some of us would like to believe the accounts that differ from the official version could be true, but the "forensic" investigation thus far has failed to impress, despite the thousands of virtual and hardcopy pages produced. Like Dealey Plaza, which seems more crowded with assassins with each passing year, the events of 911 are now overrun with holographic planes, thermate, directed energy weapons, micro-nuclear weapons, bomb-pods, cruise missiles and remote-controlled planes hitting the Pentagon, faked cell-phone calls, missing passengers, missing planes, and other "true" explanations I must have missed.

Something is wrong with the chain of evidence if the conclusions are so disparate...

 
At 1:45 PM, Blogger Laukev7 said...

For instance, Monbiot asserts that if you dissent from the 911-truther consensus that Cheney et al were diabolically clever enought to bring off this increasingly complex and complicated plot "you are a traitor and a spy."

I thought I have made this point clear in my article. Monbiot is not a traitor for disagreeing with the 9/11 Truth Movement, but because he hypocritically attempts to discredit it by attacking the messenger and using sophistry, despite having himself expressed doubts about the official story.

You dispute this by pointing out that the presumed conspirators must not be all powerful because they are being found out -- a curious assertion given the plethora of conflicting "truther" versions of the 911 event

An interesting point. It is also interesting to point out that the official story itself is supported by conflicting theories. There is also the fact that the 'conflicting' theories you're talking about (presumably the 'no plane' and the 'missile pod' theories, the former of which I considered for a while) are being increasingly discarded in favour of other theories supported by more evidence.

but at the end prove Monbiot right with your vicious conclusion: "When the New World Order gets toppled (because unlike you, we are not cowards), you will be held to account for aiding the Bush and Blair regimes."

I admit having an abrasive style when writing on my blog (even Kurt Nimmo was less abrasive than me towards Monbiot), but the fact is that while disagreement alone does not necessarily imply support or cover up for an enemy, insults and propaganda tactics are unacceptable for a commentator held up to journalistic standards. The way that Monbiot went to express his disagreement and his turn around without explanation of his past stance strongly indicates that Monbiot either has a vested interest in the official story, or was pressured to do what he did. It is interesting to note, though not conclusive of a conspiracy, that his histrionics coincided with many other hit pieces, including from the BBC.

Some of us would like to believe the accounts that differ from the official version could be true, but the "forensic" investigation thus far has failed to impress, despite the thousands of virtual and hardcopy pages produced. Like Dealey Plaza, which seems more crowded with assassins with each passing year, the events of 911 are now overrun with holographic planes, thermate, directed energy weapons, micro-nuclear weapons, bomb-pods, cruise missiles and remote-controlled planes hitting the Pentagon, faked cell-phone calls, missing passengers, missing planes, and other "true" explanations I must have missed.

I get the impression, when you say 'some of us would like to believe', that you are implying that we adopt an attitude of wishful thinking, or that somehow there is a reason to prefer a threat from a murderous and out of control government to that of an invisible and disparate terrorist group. Or are you doubting the official story, yet have difficulty believing in a non official story?

Many of theories you mention, such as the holographic planes, directed energy weapons, micro-nuclear weapons, bomb pods, cruise missiles and missing planes, have long been discredited by most mainstream 9/11 Truth activists.

I am still on the fence one some things, such as whether there were hijackers in the planes or whether they were remote controlled. But what I consider the most solid and important part of the story is not how the government actually carried out the attacks (where there is still room to debate), but the fact that the neocons lied about what really happened on 9/11, as they did with Iraq, and that there is strong indication that they premeditated the attacks.

That fact alone, with the fact that there have been several attempts, whether by the government or the corporate-owned media (which are practically the same), to smear 9/11 truth activists with insults and misrepresentation of their views. means that the angle of government involvement needs to be seriously and independently investigated.

 
At 12:27 AM, Anonymous Banyan said...

I'd like to say this was not representative, but few of the recent books and articles I've read - by the usual suspects, Fetzer, Griffin, Marrs, Zwicker & Tarpley - have done much to dissuade me from the view I developed in respect to David Icke's contribution, as I set out below...

www.paranoiamagazine.com/PDFs/Icke.pdf

Of course, the above authors are not guilty of replicating Icke's reptoid fantasies, but the problems I could see in his mish-mash of conflicting accounts, reliance upon dubious and at times discredited sources, and blanket rejection of anything official in favour of a series of overlapping and at times contradictory theories about conspiracies of incredible complexity, are just as evident in their works as in his.

Of course, as you point out, there are conflicting theories among the official accounts of 9/11, but they still advance from a number of common points. The theories you provide in this link, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/index.html - though conflicting with each other in explaining where and when the structural failure occurred, do not differ on the fundamental assumption that the cause started with jets crashing into each building... The explanations do not assume the existence of explosives or other extraneous forces.

Kev, you mention that other theories, have "long been discredited by most mainstream 9/11 Truth activists." I did not realise that what was denigrated by the media as a "fringe" concern had a "mainstream". And you assert that certain ideas have been "discredited" as though there an agreed consensus (like the IPCC), a forum where the bad ideas were rejected in favour of a single, coherent, narrative. But I look at the myriad web-sites on the subject and see no such consensus. No regretful backdowns from the no-planers, directed-energy weaponisers or micro-nuclear weapon afficiondos. Just confusion.

The persistence of these ideas is a consequence of an overall metholodology which seems to take as its baseline: if the government's "truth" is untrue, then ANYTHING could be true. I also suspect it reflects some problems with the evidence available to critics of the official version - there is not enough to create a viable chain of evidence.

Hence the increasingly complex and more improbable explanations supported by haphazard research, bouyed more by wishful thinking (or bias confirmation) and anti-Bush outrage than true objectivity.

One would like to believe, but the self-styled investigators have beaten too many paths that go no-where.

So I am not surprised that that Mr Monbiot, an advocate of global governance and extreme remedies for global warming, finds it easy to belittle the 911 Truthers. Despite the vigorous protestations to the contrary, there is too much ammunition out there from him to use.

WB

 
At 12:18 PM, Blogger Laukev7 said...

Of course, the above authors are not guilty of replicating Icke's reptoid fantasies, but the problems I could see in his mish-mash of conflicting accounts, reliance upon dubious and at times discredited sources, and blanket rejection of anything official in favour of a series of overlapping and at times contradictory theories about conspiracies of incredible complexity, are just as evident in their works as in his.

Do you realise that what you are saying about 'conspiracies of incredible complexity' completely contradicts Monbiot's claims that conspiracies simplify the world for its proponents?

I've actually read parts of one of David Icke's books, and there is simply no way you can compare his work to the research done by people questioning the official account of 9/11. David Icke scantly sources the claims he makes, and when he does it is vaguely and to books that in turn promote other theories rather than verifiable facts. Also, he does not specialise in 9/11 research, but departs from a worldview of a world controlled by a reptilian elite, and gives attention to a wide range of theories at the same time; this may sometimes be good to piece events together, but it dilutes the time spent on thoroughly thinking each of its parts.

Of course, as you point out, there are conflicting theories among the official accounts of 9/11, but they still advance from a number of common points. The theories you provide in this link, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/index.html - though conflicting with each other in explaining where and when the structural failure occurred, do not differ on the fundamental assumption that the cause started with jets crashing into each building... The explanations do not assume the existence of explosives or other extraneous forces.

The simple explanation to that is that the building collapses caused by plane crashes is essential to the official agenda of pinning the threat on an exterior enemy. Any confusion on 9/11 undermine the neocon efforts to design a scapegoat. Notice, for example (which I have, and it's the very first thing that made me suspicious), how the official story and the suspects were designated very early after the events:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/80.html

There is, however, a common thread: that the official story is demonstrably false and was a pre-determined conclusion with a prior agenda in mind.

Kev, you mention that other theories, have "long been discredited by most mainstream 9/11 Truth activists." I did not realise that what was denigrated by the media as a "fringe" concern had a "mainstream". And you assert that certain ideas have been "discredited" as though there an agreed consensus (like the IPCC), a forum where the bad ideas were rejected in favour of a single, coherent, narrative. But I look at the myriad web-sites on the subject and see no such consensus. No regretful backdowns from the no-planers, directed-energy weaponisers or micro-nuclear weapon afficiondos. Just confusion.

Not only are those theories discredited, but many of them are suspected of being planted stories to discredit non-official theories and confuse people. If you look at Prison Planet, Whatreallyhappened, 911blogger and 911 Research, all four of them either take a neutral stance or distance themselves from the no-plane theory and say it's a honey pot for confusion.

The persistence of these ideas is a consequence of an overall metholodology which seems to take as its baseline: if the government's "truth" is untrue, then ANYTHING could be true. I also suspect it reflects some problems with the evidence available to critics of the official version - there is not enough to create a viable chain of evidence.

The ideas are not persisting, but being slowly phased out. Loose Change eliminated its missile pod under the plane theory from its first edition, and is going to correct its mistakes in the next edition. WTC7 is an example of a solid point that is gaining common ground. The ideas which were scientifically developed are standing out amongst the others which are disappearing because they arised from flawed methodology and were not based on solid evidence.

So I am not surprised that that Mr Monbiot, an advocate of global governance and extreme remedies for global warming, finds it easy to belittle the 911 Truthers. Despite the vigorous protestations to the contrary, there is too much ammunition out there from him to use.

David Ray Griffin is also a proponent of world governance (for which he was criticised by New World Order opponents); yet that does not prevent him from asking serious questions about 9/11.

As for the ammunition, as I pointed out earlier, a lot of it is suspected to be disinformation deliberately planted as ammunition.

 
At 7:08 PM, Anonymous banyan said...

Interesting Kev. Let me respond:

"Do you realise that what you are saying about 'conspiracies of incredible complexity' completely contradicts Monbiot's claims that conspiracies simplify the world for its proponents?"

That’s Monbiot’s characterisation not mine. Nevertheless it’s true conspiracy theories can simplify the world for its proponents – not that conspiracists have a monopoly on that. The problem with Monbiot is that he fails to identify the two sides to conspiracism: (1) the simplified explanation e.g. it was a false-flag op; (2) the complications that inevitably arise when it comes to explaining how it was done. So in the official explanation we four groups of hijackers, hijacking four jets, three of which are successfully crashed into their targets, two of which completely collapse; but in the conspiracist version the attempt to prove the false-flag op generates more work for more conspiracists and far more to cover up: remote control jets; missing passengers (killed in the crashes or not?); setting demolition charges in WTC 1, 2 & 7 without workers noticing (surely a huge job); stand-down of NORAD etc; faking cellphone calls from UA93; getting all the military to lie about what hit the Pentagon (I note Griffin appears to be agnostic on this issue); fake Osama tapes; and so on.

"I've actually read parts of one of David Icke's books, and there is simply no way you can compare his work to the research done by people questioning the official account of 9/11. David Icke scantly sources the claims he makes, and when he does it is vaguely and to books that in turn promote other theories rather than verifiable facts. Also, he does not specialise in 9/11 research, but departs from a worldview of a world controlled by a reptilian elite, and gives attention to a wide range of theories at the same time; this may sometimes be good to piece events together, but it dilutes the time spent on thoroughly thinking each of its parts."

Completely disagree with you. I read all of his book about 9/11, not selected parts and it covers much the same ground as more recent efforts, such as those of Griffin, Tarpley and Marrs, and uses most of the same sources. In fact Icke, like Griffin, evades coming to a firm conclusion, he merely presents a lawyer’s brief designed to raise doubt though the actual narrative is confused and contradictory, reflecting the methodology of cherry-picking for anomalous facts

"Not only are those theories discredited, but many of them are suspected of being planted stories to discredit non-official theories and confuse people. If you look at Prison Planet, Whatreallyhappened, 911blogger and 911 Research, all four of them either take a neutral stance or distance themselves from the no-plane theory and say it's a honey pot for confusion."

A “neutral stance”? Pull the other one. You’re not taking a neutral stance if you’re claiming the no-plane and pod theories may have been “planted” or are the product of “government shills” as claimed by WhatReallyHappened or an “intentional disinformation theory”, according to 911Research.


"The ideas are not persisting, but being slowly phased out. Loose Change eliminated its missile pod under the plane theory from its first edition, and is going to correct its mistakes in the next edition. WTC7 is an example of a solid point that is gaining common ground. The ideas which were scientifically developed are standing out amongst the others which are disappearing because they arised from flawed methodology and were not based on solid evidence."

Phased out? By whom? You can still find them on the internet. And which “scientifically” developed ideas? I don’t see much science, just a lot of speculation by people who have ruled out the most obvious causes of building collapse, i.e. jets crashing into the WTC, in favour of more elaborate scenarios based on more elusive criteria. I like how 911Research insists the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition citing the amount of dust, the break-up of the top, the speed of the fall, their troubles with the truss theory and the fact the WTC’s engineer had claimed the buildings could withstand a Boeing 707 crash (since tested, twice, and proven incorrect, but I guess his claims still trump reality), but elsewhere on their site admits: “The collapses were very chaotic events which don't look very controlled.” Indeed.

"As for the ammunition, as I pointed out earlier, a lot of it is suspected to be disinformation deliberately planted as ammunition."

You seem to be in denial Kev. A lot of these proponents of whacko theories are legitimately stupid. There's no need to arrogantly boost yourselves and denigrate them with the unfounded allegation they're part of a disinfo campaign.

WB

 
At 1:52 AM, Blogger Laukev7 said...

That’s Monbiot’s characterisation not mine. Nevertheless it’s true conspiracy theories can simplify the world for its proponents – not that conspiracists have a monopoly on that. The problem with Monbiot is that he fails to identify the two sides to conspiracism: (1) the simplified explanation e.g. it was a false-flag op; (2) the complications that inevitably arise when it comes to explaining how it was done.

That a theory gains or loses complexity does not impinge on whether it is true or not. But addressing those claims:

1) The government's explanation that 9/11 was caused by 19 hijackers is no less simplistic than saying that it was a government operation. The two only possible theories I could see that could be considered 'less simplistic' by your apparent definition would be either if you claimed that the hijackers randomly decided to hijack planes and accidentally crashed into the twin towers (ie. coincidence theory), or that both the government and the alleged hijackers were involved, together or separately.

2) As I said above, just because a theory is simpler does not make it true. Occam's Razor can only function for a theory as far as it is sufficient to explain all the variables. The official story has not only several, but hundreds of problems, in addition to circumstantial evidence that elements in the government would benefit from the event.

So in the official explanation we four groups of hijackers, hijacking four jets, three of which are successfully crashed into their targets, two of which completely collapse; but in the conspiracist version the attempt to prove the false-flag op generates more work for more conspiracists and far more to cover up: remote control jets; missing passengers (killed in the crashes or not?); setting demolition charges in WTC 1, 2 & 7 without workers noticing (surely a huge job); stand-down of NORAD etc; faking cellphone calls from UA93; getting all the military to lie about what hit the Pentagon (I note Griffin appears to be agnostic on this issue); fake Osama tapes; and so on.

You're basing your hypothetical conspiracist explanation on a lot of assumptions here. Firstly, the assumption that it is not possible for a large number of people to cover up secrets, which has happened time and again (such as the Manhattan project). Secondly, the assumption that the cover up was successful, which it clearly was not, as people actually are coming out saying they witnessed strange activities in the towers (testimony from Scott Forbes, amongst others). Thirdly, that 'conspiracists', as you call them, accept all of those explanations you mentioned (from my experience they tend to stick to the ones that are strictly necessary). And fourthly, assuming that all those factors have to be taken into account, that all those people part of your hypothetical conspiracy have planned and worked together, rather than being isolated and getting their orders without knowing the purpose at first (such as the NORAD stand-down).

Completely disagree with you. I read all of his book about 9/11, not selected parts and it covers much the same ground as more recent efforts, such as those of Griffin, Tarpley and Marrs, and uses most of the same sources. In fact Icke, like Griffin, evades coming to a firm conclusion, he merely presents a lawyer’s brief designed to raise doubt though the actual narrative is confused and contradictory, reflecting the methodology of cherry-picking for anomalous facts

The burden of proof is not on us to demonstrate that the government account is incorrect. The burden is on them to prove that their accusations are founded. They have not done so satisfactorily, they have moved to stifle debate and cherry-pick evidence in their own so-called 'investigations' (a far greater offence when it is done with state resources at the expense of the taxpayer), and in addition to that there is evidence of their own complicity.

I do not believe it is possible to coherently prove or test any other theory than that promoted by the government as long as it is in power and unless a truly independent investigation is conducted or court charges are brought against the suspects. Until then we will have no choice but to do with the parcels of evidence and testimonies we can find.

A “neutral stance”? Pull the other one. You’re not taking a neutral stance if you’re claiming the no-plane and pod theories may have been “planted” or are the product of “government shills” as claimed by WhatReallyHappened or an “intentional disinformation theory”, according to 911Research.

You misinterpreted either what I said, or the stances of the sites. WRH says that the 'no plane' theories are planted by government agents; Prison Planet mentions the possibility, but does not specifically reject them. The same is true for 911 Research, according to its FAQ; I could not find the words you cited anywhere on the site, and a Google search does not return any web page from 911 Research.

Phased out? By whom? You can still find them on the internet.

So if there are websites praising the merits of Mac OS 9, it must mean that the operating system wasn't phased out and replaced by Mac OS X? I gave you a clear example of a prominent 9/11 documentary that abandoned its claims regarding missile pods. Prison Planet used to promote no-plane theories, but has since distanced itself from them.

You seem to be in denial Kev. A lot of these proponents of whacko theories are legitimately stupid. There's no need to arrogantly boost yourselves and denigrate them with the unfounded allegation they're part of a disinfo campaign.

I said that a lot of it is suspected of being part of a disinformation campaign. Whether that allegation is in fact true is another story. If Monbiot had done any research, he would have come across those accusations and made proper judgement in consequence, or concluded at the very least that a significant portion of the 9/11 Truth Movement rejects those theories.

I will have to end this exchange, because I am working on an essay. I apologise, but I have already spent too many hours on writing those articles that I should instead have spent on my essay. Please do not reply, as I get easily distracted and badly need to return to my work. It was nonetheless a pleasure to have this discussion.

Sincerely,

Laukev7

 
At 12:54 AM, Anonymous Banyan said...

Charming to last, Kev.

I don't think comparing the alleged govt concocted 9/11 flag op to the Manhattan Project is viable.

Despite Scott Forbes' unverified claims, you don't have any whistleblowers.

And even if you just "suspect" the no-planers and other mega-fantasists of being disinfo agents: please don't flatter yourself by thinking the govt would waste its time.

The overall "9/11 was a govt false-flag op" (pick your scenario LIHOP, MIHOP and method - plane, no plane etc, etc) scene fails to convince because it represents the very worst of conspiracist research - the official story is rejected in extremis, and any and all contrary evidence, no matter how unreliable is elevated in truth.

Carry on Kev.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home