How the Fake Truth Movement Operates - a Thumbnail Sketch

gretavo's picture

The Apparent Principles of the Fake Truth Movement

I Create 9/11 truth groups, entities, websites, films etc. and volunteer to take on leadership responsibilities.

II Coordinate with other fake truthers to promote each other, i.e. 911Blogger promoting TruthAction promoting 9/11 Truth News, etc. Also known as creating ostensible diversity that masks actual uniformity.

III Marginalize people and sites who insist on criticizing the official fake truth line.

IV Create a fake "enemy truther" with an absurd agenda like Nico Haupt and have him attack you so as to gain sympathy from other truthers and create the impression that you are important and effective because you are the "enemy truther"'s enemy.

V Further bolster your image as "good truthers" by dropping names and promoting "feelgood" causes like first responder health and glorifying the victims' families.

VI Incessantly call for "unity" (meaning of course everyone united in agreement with the official fake truth line) and decry those who disagree as "dividers".

VII When the truther rank and file show independent thinking and all coercive and manipulative tactics fail to "correct" it, go ahead and adapt to the new awareness with as little useful info as possible, i.e. limited hangout. This is necessary because the most important thing is maintaining credibility among newcomers and old timers alike. Whether this means embracing explosive demolition or even some discussion of Israeli complicity the idea is to keep the sheep in the flock from straying out of your sphere of influence and control.

VIII Over time you will use the credibility you thereby preserve to move everyone back to the accepted line, i.e. LIHOP. You will be assisted in this by folks like Kucinich who will seem to be a great hope, or by shills like Steve Alten who you will also promote as a great hope.

IX As the movement grows, you continue to pull back from damaging revelations in favor of LIHOP and other limited hangouts by relying on your network of "established (fake) truthers" to give the impression to newbies that those complaining about the retreat from real issues like explosive demolition and Israeli/Zionist involvement are zealots, bigots, etc.

X Whenever possible, try to rehabilitate and recycle discredited fake truthers like Jim Fetzer.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
gretavo's picture


"Use the mainstream media to promote the idea that the fake truth movement is the real truth movement..."

The truth is out there
By Peter Barber

Published: June 7 2008 01:22 | Last updated: June 7 2008 01:22

When Cynthia McKinney speaks the words of Martin Luther King Jr, they resound through the church with some of King’s cadence. “A time comes,” declares the former US congresswoman from Georgia, “when silence is betrayal.” The congregation answers with whoops and calls of “That’s right!” King was talking about America’s war in Vietnam. More than 40 years later, before the packed pews of the Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles, McKinney is speaking of the American government’s war on its own people. The shock and awe phase of this conflict, we had been told earlier, began on September 11 2001, when the Bush administration launched attacks on New York and Washington, or at least waved them through.

According to a show of hands that February afternoon, several hundred people in the immaculate church believe this to be true. Some came in T-shirts bearing the words “9/11 was an inside job”. One wore a badge demanding that you “Examine your assumptions”. Quite a few bought the DVDs on sale in the foyer, most of which bore photographs of the Twin Towers spewing smoke. They had all come to hear the message of Architects, Engineers & Scientists for 9/11 Truth, one of the dozens of groups across the US which campaign to persuade us that everything we think we know about 9/11 is wrong.

Last winter, “Investigate 9/11” banners seemed to be popping up all over the place. Bill Clinton was heckled by “truthers” in Denver while campaigning for his wife. Truthers picketed the Academy Awards in LA – despite this year’s winner of the best actress Oscar, Marion Cotillard, reportedly being one of them. But then, she’s French. Literature lovers in that country pushed Thierry Meyssan’s L’Effroyable imposture (The Appalling Fraud) – which asserts that 9/11 was a government plot to justify invading Iraq and Afghanistan and increase military spending – to the top of the bestseller list in 2002.

Country music star Willie Nelson is assuredly not French, but a week or so before the Oscars he described as naive the notion that the “implosion” of the Twin Towers was caused by crashing jets. Meanwhile the European Parliament screened the Italian documentary Zero, in which Gore Vidal, Italian playwright Dario Fo, and Italian MEP Giulietto Chiesa blame the US government, not al-Qaeda, for 9/11. The following month, Japanese MP Yukihisa Fujita raised his own doubts about the official story at a seminar in Sydney. A busy season for the “9/11 Truth” movement.

The events of 9/11 were recorded in many thousands of images, from crisp agency photographs to amateur camcorder footage. Every recorded trail of smoke, every spray of sparks is pored over by an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement. They believe that the key to the mystery is hidden somewhere within the pictures, just as some people think that clues are contained in the Zapruder film which captured the moment of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Allied against them is a smaller group of rival bloggers who have taken it upon themselves to debunk what they claim are dangerous conspiracy theories.

There is some evidence that the truthers are swaying the rest of us. A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 revealed that only 16 per cent of Americans polled believed the Bush administration was telling the truth about 9/11. More than half thought it was “hiding something”. This is not the same as believing the government actually launched the attacks, but a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll the same year found that more than a third of those questioned suspected that federal officials assisted in the attacks or took no action to stop them so that the US could go to war.

The truthers certainly believe that they are on a roll. The crowd in the Immanuel Presbyterian Church seemed electrified. As the donated sound system pumped out angry rap, a giant video screen showed images of protesters demanding a new investigation into 9/11. The symbols and the language were borrowed from the civil rights struggle, but the truthers are an eclectic group, including anti-Bush, anti-war liberals and anti-government libertarians. A young man in a “Vote Ron Paul” T-shirt scuttled through the hall, filming us as we took our seats on wooden pews.

First up was Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect who founded Architects, Engineers & Scientists for 9/11 Truth, which now claims to have 379 professional members. Gage told us that the collapse of the Twin Towers could not have been due merely to gravity, the impact of the airliners and the resulting jet fuel fires – which would not have been hot enough to weaken the steel sufficiently. Behind him on the video screen was the south tower of the World Trade Center. Smoke poured from its upper floors. A respectful silence fell over the audience, followed by gasps as the building appeared to dissolve before our eyes.

While I have seen this footage countless times, it seems that I had clearly never understood what I was seeing. The destruction of the Twin Towers, along with the collapse of the nearby 47-storey World Trade Center 7 building, had all the hallmarks of controlled demolition, according to Gage. They all came straight down, almost at the speed of a free-falling object, right into their own footprints. Steel-framed buildings had never collapsed because of fires before. On this day three did, one of which, “Building 7”, was not even hit by an aircraft.

Gage, who had worked himself into a fever, exhorted the audience to stand up and be counted: “A country is at stake.” Then he welcomed on to the stage the star of the evening, Steven Jones. A softly spoken physicist, Jones is the movement’s designated martyr and seems to promise what the truthers so desperately need: scientific credibility.

Jones entered into truther lore in 2006 when he was put into early retirement by Brigham Young University in Utah after giving public lectures on his paper “Why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?”, which he published on the website of the university’s physics department. Jones contended that the towers were demolished by cutter charges which had been placed throughout the buildings, probably involving an incendiary called thermite. BYU’s College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the structural engineering faculty, followed by the university administration, disowned him.

Still, Jones is no fool. He has published more than 50 scholarly papers, including pieces on cold nuclear fusion in journals such as Scientific American and Nature. He invented a cooker which uses solar power and has donated models to poor families in the developing world. Jones tells us he believes laboratory testing of dust from Ground Zero will reveal residue from a thermite reaction.

As soon as the seminar is over, Jones is mobbed by people asking him to pose for photos and offering their own views on the 9/11 plot, as well as others such as the presence above our heads of chemtrails (deadly toxins sprayed by unidentified aircraft, which some believe are part of a secret global depopulation programme). This is the world Jones now inhabits – it seems a long way from a Utah physics department. I ask him later by phone if he has any regrets about publishing that fateful paper: “No regrets. I’ve thought of Galileo a few times. He got a little worse than I did, I suppose.”

Jones is typical of many 9/11 researchers in that the subject has taken over his professional life. Down the coast in Santa Barbara is another of the movement’s luminaries. On the beach at Isla Vista, one of the most expensive real-estate spots in the US, lives David Ray Griffin, a former theology professor. As his dogs scratch excitedly on the sliding door, Griffin explains that America’s primary faith is not Christianity, but nationalism. “Other countries do really terrible things. Our leaders never would. And that [belief] has been the biggest impediment to getting people to look at the evidence, because they just know a priori that that is ridiculous.”

Griffin now thinks the evidence to the contrary is incontrovertible. Until 2002, he had busied himself far from the rancour of public controversy writing rather obscure philosophical books and teaching philosophy of religion at the Claremont School of Theology. But the course of his research changed abruptly when he heard a visiting British theologian question the official account of 9/11. Two years later, Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor, with a foreword by British MP Michael Meacher, became a touchstone in the 9/11 Truth movement. He has since written others, including one detailing the “omissions and distortions” of the 9/11 Commission, the report of which fits the definition of “conspiracy theory” neatly, he says. “They started with the conclusion that al-Qaeda did it and didn’t even consider the alternative that it was an inside job.”

Griffin was a script consultant on Loose Change Final Cut, part of the internet phenomenon that set off the current explosion of low-budget 9/11 DVDs. The previous version was viewed more than 10 million times on Google Video, according to Vanity Fair. In 2002, armed only with a laptop and off-the-shelf video production software, Dylan Avery, an 18-year-old resident of Oneonta, New York, set about making a fictional film about discovering, with his friends, that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government. At some point in his research, Avery had a “Dude, this shit is real!” moment and Loose Change entered the realm of agit-prop documentary. Final Cut makes a bold new allegation: the Twin Towers were packed with deadly asbestos, which would have cost billions to clean up. “If you bring down the buildings,” says Griffin, “not only do you not have to pay ... to clean them up, somebody is going to make billions of dollars on the insurance.”

September 11 as insurance job? This seems to expand the circle of conspirators somewhat. Griffin ventures another possible explanation: the psychological impact. “You had these massive explosions, which rather looked like a nuclear blast,” he says. “That’s always been the deep fear of America. In the run-up to the Iraq war, that’s what they were talking about – we cannot wait until we have a nuclear cloud.”

Griffin offers one further speculation, this time on a question which is controversial even among 9/11 sceptics: what hit the Pentagon? Thierry Meyssan was the first to claim that it was not Flight 77 – an American Airlines 757 carrying 64 passengers – but a cruise missile that hit the west wall of the Pentagon at 9.37am on September 11. Websites have followed suit, pointing to the apparent lack of plane debris on the Pentagon lawn and the fact that the hole left in the outer ring of the building looks too small to accommodate the wingspan of a 757. Retired US Air Force captain Russ Wittenberg from Pilots for 9/11 Truth asserted that no inexperienced pilot could have performed the manoeuvre the 9/11 Commission concluded that al-Qaeda conspirator Hani Hanjour pulled off that morning: a 330° turn, 2,200ft descent, a full-throttle dive and then a 530 miles per hour plunge at ground level into the Pentagon. Call it “the magic plane theory”: doubters believe that, just as the bullet that killed Kennedy appeared to defy the laws of physics, so the plane that struck the Pentagon was like no other in existence.

And just as Nasa was forced to counter claims the moon landings were faked, these and other claims have forced the US State Department into the debunking business. Its Identifying Misinformation website states that debris from Flight 77 was indeed recovered, as were the remains of passengers and crew. Many witnesses saw the plane come in, and a number of passengers made phone calls to their loved ones telling them their flight had been hijacked.

There is also another obvious problem: if a missile hit the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77? “There was a rumour that an airliner had gone down on the Ohio/Kentucky border and that was taken very seriously early on by the Federal Aviation Authority,” says Griffin. It later rejected the story. But Griffin claims the only evidence that Flight 77 was aloft after that was an alleged phone call from Barbara Olsen to Ted Olsen, the solicitor-general of the United States.

So how does he explain that phone call? Ted Olsen is a Bush administration insider, he says. Another possible answer, though, is “voice-morphing technology”. This would also explain the flurry of phone calls from United Airlines Flight 93, which, as the official story has it, crashed in a Pennsylvania field after passengers revolted against their hijackers.

It’s not just supporters of the official story who roll their eyes at these claims. They put Griffin in the camp of the “no-planers”, at least as far as the attack on the Pentagon is concerned. The no-planers enrage the rest of the truthers, who accuse them of sabotaging the credibility of the movement. The claim that no plane hit the Pentagon is a Trojan horse, they say – disinformation that serves the conspirators. Some – such as former MI5 whistleblower David Shayler – have even asserted that no planes, but missiles disguised by “cloaking technology”, hit the Twin Towers. Shayler, incidentally, proclaimed himself the Messiah last year.

If the 9/11 truth movement is fighting a kind of asymmetric war against official sources of knowledge, it is also battling itself. As the movement morphs into an international activist group, it recognises that if it is to convince middle Americans, it must distance itself from its exotic fringe. Once, it was the Mihops versus the Lihops. These factions, who sound like warring species from an H.G. Wells story, are those who believe the government Made It Happen On Purpose and those who think it Let It Happen On Purpose. The Mihops are in the ascendancy.

The genesis of all this can be traced back to a schism that followed the first real attempt to bring scholarly credibility to the 9/11 sceptics. In 2005, Steven Jones was invited to form a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth by James Fetzer, a professor in the philosophy department at the University of Minnesota and the author of some 20 books on the philosophy of science and artificial intelligence. Fetzer teaches critical thinking, and is nothing if not critical. He has been campaigning for more than a decade to prove that the Zapruder film is a hoax perpetuated by the same government intelligence agencies that orchestrated JFK’s assassination.

But within a year, Jones had written to all members of Scholars announcing that he and others no longer wanted to be associated with Fetzer, who was, in the rebels’ opinion, holding them up to ridicule. Fetzer had backed a theory by Judy Wood, a former assistant professor in mechanical engineering at Clemson University, proposing that the Twin Towers were brought down by a “directed energy” weapon developed as part of the US government’s Star Wars programme. It prompted a stampede to a new group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, headed by Jones. Confusing the two groups would be like mistaking Monty Python’s Judean People’s Front for the People’s Front of Judea: this was a major doctrinal split.

Fetzer’s view is that any serious inquiry into what happened on 9/11 should look at all possibilities. Supporters of the directed energy hypothesis keep popping up at 9/11 Truth lectures to heckle what Python fans might call the “splittist” thermite theorists. Among the advocates of the Star Wars theory is Morgan Reynolds, perhaps the first prominent US government official to claim that 9/11 was an inside job. At the time of the attacks, Reynolds was chief economist at the US Department of Labor.

Some Star Wars supporters, in turn, accuse proponents of the thermite hypothesis of being government shills. One, on, alleges that Jones’s public denunciation of Star Wars theories is actually a Trojan horse; he notes that Jones once worked at Los Alamos, where directed energy weapons are researched. This line of conjecture also entangles Norman Mineta, US transportation secretary on September 11 2001. Mineta was the man who grounded all civilian aircraft on that morning. But he was also once vice-president of Lockheed Martin, a founding member of the Directed Energy Professional Society ... In this outer reach of the blogosphere, no one is ever more than six degrees of separation from the heart of the conspiracy.

Jones did, in fact, do post-doctoral research at the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility for the University of Wyoming, but he says it was peaceful and non-weapons-related. He says the more out-there theories, including those of the no-planers, are harming the movement. “First, they discourage others who are trying to do serious work, and they tend to be quite vocal about their heckling,” he says. “More serious is that when we’re really trying to look at an evidence-based approach, we get lumped in with these people and then dismissed as a whole.”

Two days before Jones’s lecture in LA, his erstwhile colleague was taking his own campaign on the road on the other side of the country. After addressing Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth in New Hampshire, Fetzer was off to that seat of academic respectability, Yale University. To prepare for our meeting, I watched a DVD of a 9/11 symposium he held in his new hometown of Madison, Wisconsin last year. The star of this show was Alfred Lambremont Webre, a judge on former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad’s alternative international War Crimes Tribunal in Kuala Lumpur and co-author of the Space Preservation Treaty. He delivers what might be the most momentous opening line in the history of town hall seminars. “Fellow Citizens... 9/11 was a false flag operation by an international war crimes racketeering organisation to provide a pretext to engage in a genocidal and ecocidal depleted uranium bombing of central Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq in order to secure vast oil and uranium reserves; to roll out a terror-based national security state system worldwide and ... to implement the final stages of a world depopulation policy.” There are two more “false flag” operations in the pipeline, he says. The first is the war against asteroids, the second the “war against the evil aliens”.

Hearing this, you either experience the thrill of revelation or the sinking feeling that the person you are listening to is having some kind of breakdown. Within 30 minutes, Webre has folded into the 9/11 plot the Skull & Bones society at Yale University – or the “Brotherhood of Death”, as he calls it – neocon think-thank the Council on Foreign Relations, the Rothschilds, the Queen and the City of London. I wondered how all these conspiracies could be maintained without the whole conceit unravelling.

The answer, of course, is that there is only one conspiracy. Pearl Harbour, the moon landing, JFK, 9/11, the Illuminati, the Black Helicopters, Skull & Bones, chemtrails: all faces of the same demon. The plot goes all the way to the top, and all the way back in time. You could come to believe that it involves everyone except yourself – at which point it’s all over for you. And as I listened, I just waited for him to say the Word. And, inevitably, Webre brought it all back to the “international neo-Zionist organisation”.

I asked Fetzer about this as we sat in a cafe across from Yale, home of the Brotherhood of Death: how did he keep his scholars on message? “It’s obvious to me that you have to consider all the possible alternatives,” he says. “You can’t exclude any, lest, as you proceed in your investigation and eliminate hypotheses, you eliminate the true hypothesis because you’ve never allowed it to be considered.”

Fetzer’s talk later that night does not go well. A Yale student had promoted the lecture on Facebook Events, but fellow students had apparently been unwilling to add their names, which anyone can see, perhaps for fear of ridicule. Only six show up. When it becomes clear that Fetzer is implicating some kind of Star Wars weapon, the two next to me begin scrolling distractedly through their mobile phone messages. Within 10 minutes, they have left.

The conclusion of the 9/11 Commission – the official story – is that the 2001 attacks got through because those charged with protecting America had not truly conceived of the threat: in its author’s evocative phrase, they had suffered a “failure of imagination”. After trawling the internet in search of 9/11 Truth, it seems to me the American imagination is strong. “Americans are very good at dreaming up these scenarios,” says Lewis Lapham, the former Harper’s magazine editor and a prominent critic of the Bush administration post-September 11. “We are open to all kinds of magical theories,” he says, citing the continuing fascination with the assassination of JFK. “We are also good at creating religions.” Lapham thinks the theory that 9/11 was an inside job follows in this long tradition, but also reflects cynicism among Americans towards their government. He does not accept that the Bush administration planned 9/11 or even allowed it to happen. Nonetheless, he thinks a new investigation is warranted. In 2004, Harper’s ran a trenchant piece describing the 9/11 Commission as a “whitewash” and a “cheat and a fraud” for downplaying evidence that warnings of the al-Qaeda threat were ignored. Such flaws allowed space for alternative theories to develop, Lapham says.

In this, there are shades of the Warren Commission into the assassination of President Kennedy, which served merely to deepen popular distrust. But if we have seen the likes of the 9/11 Truth movement before, it also represents something new. “With the Kennedy assassination, pretty soon after the events themselves there were fairly significant questions being raised by people of all types and stripes about what actually happened,” says Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor and author of Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture. “But whereas then it was a generalised, amorphous kind of response, the amount of organisation – politically and through alternative media – is far more striking now than it was back then.”

Fenster thinks that the 9/11 Truth movement is in some ways a typical American response to a surprising and traumatic event. But it also represents a step change in its use of telecommunications technology. “One of the interesting things, particularly in the beginning of this movement, was the extent to which there were a lot of local groups in different cities organising protests ... and they could co-ordinate and create a national and international movement,” he says. “Whether that translates into more people actually believing in the conspiracy theory is a completely different question.”

Fenster believes the few published polls on the subject, rather than showing any real depth of suspicion about 9/11, demonstrate declining trust in the Bush administration generally. The author of one of the most rigorous of the websites that aim to debunk the conspiracy theories,, notes that the most recent Zogby poll on attitudes towards 9/11 found only 4.6 per cent of Americans believe the Bush administration blew up the Twin Towers. “If you follow the website hits, you’ll find that since Debunking911 came into existence, conspiracy sites have been losing readership,” he says via e-mail. “I think all they needed was someone to fill in the parts conspiracy theorists left out of the conspiracy story and their numbers begin to shrink.”

Perhaps the 9/11 Truth movement is what one would expect in the dying days of an unpopular administration, and with no end in sight to a costly war. Whether it can maintain momentum when that government leaves office next year is anyone’s guess. In the meantime, some on the left accuse it of letting the leaders they so vehemently distrust off the hook. “They make a mockery of [civil rights] causes by associating their nonsense with genuinely important issues, and by diverting a large number of people who should know better into a unicorn hunt,” says British writer and activist George Monbiot. Monbiot is regularly heckled by 9/11 truthers at public events after accusing them in The Guardian of undermining genuine political opposition. His first column on the truthers prompted a near-record number of postings on the paper’s Comment Is Free website – 777 – many accusing him of being part of the conspiracy.

“It’s very interesting to see,” he says, “particularly in the United States, how the anti-war movement has been largely co-opted in many places by the 9/11 Truth movement. And we desperately need an active anti-war movement, because there is a lot of reckoning to be done.”

Glossary of doubt
People who claim that it wasn’t an aircraft, but a missile, that hit the Pentagon on September 11 2001. Some have taken it a step further and argued that no aircraft hit the twin towers, either. What the world saw that day, these sceptics argue, was either video trickery or cruise missiles disguised through image technology as aircraft.

Truthers who believe the US government “Made it happen on purpose”, “it” being the destruction of September 11.

A more moderate strain of truther who believe the government “Let it happen on purpose”.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Started by James Fetzer, the group advocates looking at all possible explanations of what happened on September 11, no matter how improbable.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
The more moderate splinter group of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, led by Steven Jones. Endorses an “evidence-based approach” to questioning the 9/11 story.

Peter Barber is the FT’s deputy comment editor
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

gretavo's picture

Kevin Barrett's rehab of Fetzer now makes a little more sense!

So Uncle Fetzer has been hamming it up at Yale, and the big joke is relayed to the readers of the Financial Times. BWAHAHA! Nice try folks! Kevin, kiss my ass, dude.

Annoymouse's picture

i just watch how Arabesque,

i just watch how Arabesque, Simuvac, and Victronix Hoffman operate. thats how a fake truther acts. fucking parasites.

Scrubby's picture

refinements for point VII:

Acknowledge that the demolition of the towers is a 'legitimate question', to maintain credibility, and to be friends with influental researchers such as Jones , Gage, etc, BUT, only according to the following BUTs:
1- Always maintain that it is just a 'theory' that buildings don't commit suicide.
2- Always maintain that it is only one question among many many hundred others, which are even more important. Such as for example the August 6 forewarning about the "AL-QUAIDA hijackings", which 'sounds less crazy and much more serious'.
3- Always maintain that only 'experts' can have a valid opinion on the 'collapse', and that common sense - or believing your own eyes - is useless.
4- Marginalize people not agreeing with the above, and make sure to drop hints about all you do for the 'movement' along the way - as opposed to those people pushing 'flimsy physical evidence' who are just disturbing your fine work - maybe even in a setup! (but only hint at that).
5- every once in a while, drop the Ruppert thing. Noone was able to solve the JFK case with physics either etc.
6- goto(1);

gretavo's picture

thanks scrubby, good elaboration!

I'm not sure why some comments aren't appearing in the recent comment block but oh wells....

Annoymouse's picture

Clever protocols. I thought

Clever protocols.

I thought it was instructive when I piped up at truthaction in defense of KBarrett's openness to holycost revisionism. Read the replies which follow, esp from "Schröder The Guilt Wracked German" who pays token homage to free speech, then goes on with a paragraph characterizing holycost revisionists as satan's spawn; and from Truthmover who solillaquys about how questioning the holycost story insults Jews down to their core.

If they allowed the dialog to remain factual & rational, they'd be doomed. So they desperately throw these emotional thought-stopper smoke grenades to derail the dialog.

There's a parallel there somewhere to the manufactured dramas we've seen from some fake truthers: JG The Big Hearted 911 Family Guy always teetering on abandoning activism coz of the "haters"; activists not buying enough Shill Game was driving a spike through Alten The Good Looking NYT Best Selling Guy's heart; AAshes is disillusioned because he sees people letting the scary moozlems off the hook. In all cases we see the absence of reason, replaced by bombardment with emotional thought-stopper memes. "There's your sign" -- Larry The Cable Guy

gretavo's picture

The 9/11 Family Guy - I LOVE it!

Does anyone feel like photoshopping some cartoons? :-P

The whole holocaust thing is really sad. The real suffering gets belittled by the overlaying of religious fantasy on it. That's exactly what it is--a new religion tacked onto an old one, with heresy punishable (in some countries) under the law. Can you imagine if the vatican imprisoned people who said Jesus did not come back from the dead? I mean, the evidence is overwhelming that he did, after all, and how could more than a billion christians all be wrong? I mean, if Christianity was a big hoax SOMEBODY would have spilled the beans already, right?

Annoymouse's picture

9/11 Family Guy

Annoymouse's picture

I might have to print out

I might have to print out some of these family guy cartoons. Every time I see them it makes me chuckle :) !


gretavo's picture

gotta give credit to the annoymouse who coined the term

9/11 Family Guy... cracks me up too!

Annoymouse's picture

"There's your sign!"

correction: credit goes to Bill Engvall,

Annoymouse's picture

comments FYI

This blog is an example of the erratic display of info re comments on the WTCD blog main page. For this blog, it indicates no comments presently, and has an "add new comment" link. So while I opened the blog the first day, I haven't opened it since because there appeared to be no reason, IE no new comments. So I opened it to make the comments above, and see there are already several lengthy comments, with no indication of this at the main page. Other blogs tell the number of comments if any.

[Real® Annoymouse™]©™®

gretavo's picture

I know, sorry

I don't know what's up with the comments not showing up for some blogs... It MAY be that it happens on blog posts that are put into the "book outline" category. I'll try an experiment and if that's the case I'll just stop putting things in the book outline...

Tim Russet's picture

nope, that's not it...


Jpass's picture

associate alternative / critical research

Protocol XI - Associate critical & alternative lines of research with topics that are generally avoided by Holocaust Denial or White Power.

Seems to me there is an over abundance of pointless references to WWII, the Holocaust, Jews, Protocols, and other topics that would seem to immediately drive people away from the WTC Blog.

Take this blog for example. What is the value of the alternative title?

The Protocols of the Elders of LIHOP

Do we want people to investigate the attacks and demolitions on 9/11/2001 or do we want them to investigate the famed protocols of the elders of Zion?

Annoymouse's picture

Besides the Big Lie

Besides the Big Lie parallels between the 911 OCT and the official holocaust narrative, the holocaust racketeering continues today,

Holocaustâ„¢ Reparations Bill in Congress could cost Americans 200 BILLION DOLLARS

gretavo's picture

sorry JPass, but someone has to do it

I understand your feeling about this but I think you are overstating the case a bit. One of the most important things we can do in the service of truth is to make it clear that we have no sacred cows--since even mentioning any one of these subjects on any other site (unless of course to denounce independent thinkers) leads to banning, and since users on those other sites cynically then take advantage of that taboo to promote the "official stories" of any number of things, I am committed to encouraging people tostop being so damn afraid of offending or "scaring away" people. There are plenty of other truth sites out there and as you know most of them are pretty keen to control the discourse not just about things like the holocaust but about 9/11 itself.

I guess what is missing now is a site that is not controlled by shills, that also discourages discussion of Zionist hoaxes other than 9/11. 9/11 was a quintessential Zionist hoax, and so is the official Holocaust narrative industry. I see strong parallels here and have always said I believe 9/11 was intended to be "America's little holocaust" just like Zionist controlled Palestinian rights people are behind the whole "Never Forget the Naqba Either!" movement, which again very cynically tells Palestinians that they will be supported and have their suffering acknowledged if and only if they accept that their "catastrophe" was smaller and not as horrible as the king of them all (based on false claims of mass homicidal gassings.)

One thing that everyone should know is that I will never compromise my principles for any reason--if I am doomed to be marginalized and unpopular then I accept my fate. I have experienced a number of instances of people "befriending" me in order to try to get me to moderate my views in some manner, and every attempt has been transparent and while I usually don't let on that I know what's going on, every such attempt has simply served to guide me towards things that need more, not less attention paid to them. I'm not accusing you of doing that, btw, I think your concerns are legitimate to some extent. I'm just saying that I don't intend to self-censor or try to be more Zionist-friendly. I don't think that is a good idea in the long run--I think that people, especially Jewish people, need to get over their propaganda and the idea that their sacred myths are somehow inviolable.

Since the existing sites that discuss these things honestly so often do so in such an acrimonious manner (like Hufschmid's and Daryl Bradford Smith's) and those that do it responsibly like CODOH are sadly 9/11 truth deniers, I have a niche to fill and I intend to do just that! And for the record, "holocaust denial" is a pejorative, and linking holocaust revisionism to white power is also not a very helpful thing to do. I have taken heat from people in the past for banning someone that I was pretty sure was a white supremacist so the notion that the two things somehow have to go together is just silly. But in any case thanks for sharing your view on this--it's a discussion that needs to happen regularly, imho...

Annoymouse's picture

borrow their holocaust fire & brimstone

They've done such an expert job engineering & propagating the whole holocaust memeplex in the decades since WWII, the most productive route to disseminating 911 Truth may be evoking their own holocaust thought-stopper buzzwords, applying them to 911 & the warrenterra hoax.

"9/11 Truth Ends The New Holocaust", "9/11 Truth Denial", "The War On Terror Is The New Anti-Semitism", "The War On Terror Is The New Holocaust", "Never Again", ....

You don't try to swim upstream by disassembling the BS thought-stopper memes & trigger-words which they've labored for generations to ingrain into the public psyche-- that's too big a task. Rather you swim downstream, borrowing their dubious works of art, putting them to their highest & best use: drawing upon their "power" to reach & wake people up. Recall SJones et al with their "Fourteen Points of AGREEMENT..." approach? Same idea: 911 Truthers join the ADL chorus singing "Holocaust = Epitome Of Evil!"; "DENIAL of TRUTH = BAD!"; "Anti-Semitism = Extra Super Duper Bad Racism!", "Never Ever Again!". You sing it to the beat of this drum:

Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

As a practical means to an end, you attract the blue-piller by sharing their (engineered from above) "anti-bad-stuff" values by your singing from the ADL songsheet temporarily, while you throw them a rope to climb out of their 911 OCT ditch (a mindfuck ditch much fresher & shallower than the holocaust memeplex ditch). From that new plateau of enlightenment, they can reassess the official holocaust narrative as their own self-guided journey down the rabbit hole takes them, as their mind will be newly fertile to alt realities (911 Truth as "Keyhole to Consciousness").

It's wonderful that you'll have harnessed the behavior-control power of your target's earlier blue-pill mindfuck status, to attract their eyes/ears while avoiding their conditioned response of balking in fear that you're one of those bad-stuff-labels who they want nothing to do with; then you'll have spent that trust-currency giving them a hand up out of their [911] mind-control ditch, leaving them "able to fish" enough that their own nature & aptitude will enable them to self-liberate from the other various mindfucks which TPTB have bestowed upon us all (you-know-what-O-co$t).

So long story short, mixing revisionist perspectives of the official holocaust narrative with 911 Truth is counterproductive, given the depth of most people's lifelong social programming-- programming so powerful, we're seeing it used by fake truthers "inside" 911 Truth to steer and gatekeep those more malleable. But we can jujitsu the power intrinsic in that programming, to hurry more people's advancement to the other side of the 911 Truth keyhole.

gretavo's picture

the other thing...

about this is that our site is not exactly publicized by anyone in the mainstream truth movement, so I don't see how we can be turning off that many people. if anything, the only site that links to us, Prothink, is arguably much less politically correct and even borderline mean-spirited when it comes to Zionism so we may well be rescuing some people from the slippery slope down to irrational jew hatred! in fact, this site is such a small part of my contribution (cue the violins) while no mainstream truthers ever cite or acknowledge or link to us, I have distributed thousands of AE911truth and cards in real life. I also help out people who promote Alex Jones and We Are Change because they are sincere and part of the movement no matetr what I think of AJ or WAC. Is it too much to ask that this little hidden enclave of irreverence be allowed to exist as an anti-racist anti-hate oasis of unvarnished truth and free inquiry? I don't think so... and for the record the Protocols reference is a joke, J! I don't believe the actual Protocols are genuine--I think they were intended precisely to make people point the finger at Jews generally instead of at the elite, which included the Rothschilds. Much as Hufschmid does today. The fact that they are alleged to have been discovered when a courier for the elders was serendipitously hit by lightning is just one reason that I believe them to be faked. Now, is there some interesting info and insight that can be gleaned from that fraud? There is, absolutely, and I think everyone needs to read them to understand the way that the deception was crafted.