ref
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,685
I wrote this, because in my opinion the role of some individual people or groups has been exaggerated in the history of the truth movement. I've done a little speculation, first in the main chapter I remove all the Holocaust deniers from the history of 9/11 TM and take a look at what's left after that. Then I remove some other important pieces from the puzzle and speculate the outcome.
First Scenario
First the Holocaust deniers. I eliminated every know denier, as well as every speculative case (like an article published on a denier's site, although the author him/herself is not necessarily a denier).
These are the clear cases of theories and people behind them that are sourced to a non-denier.
But on the other hand, we would clearly be missing some early stuff that originated from Holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers by default represent faulty logic, so naturally they were pretty quick to spread controversial ideas of 9/11 as well, and naturally they are disproportionately well represented within the truth movement.
If it wasn't for these deniers, we'd be missing the articles that made these theories popular:
Most important of these denier related efforts is the detailed analysis of demolition by Jim McMichael, written a month after the attacks (not a known denier himself, but article released on a denier site). It solidified the demolition case and inspired multiple high profile truthers. An example: if this article and it's "followers" wouldn't have inspired Jim Hoffman (Hoffman has clearly stated the importance of this article to his views), his websites wouldn't have inspired even more people and we might not have Steven Jones as a truther (he was inspired by Hoffman's work). We all know what we wouldn't have, if we didn't have Steven Jones's truther efforts. Of course, this is all speculation. Hoffman could easily have been inspired by another article at a later date, thus producing the exact same outcome with maybe only a small delay.
Other scenarios
What if we remove some non-denier pieces of the early truther puzzle. Let's take Paul Thompson out of the equation. In a simplified speculation he would take Griffin and Gage with him, as well many others who entertained their first inside job thoughts while reading the Thompson timeline. Of course, once again, in a more realistic speculation some other person might have created a similar timeline to Thompson's at a later date, or the people who were inspired by Thompson might have found other inspiring sources, and the results would be exactly the same as we see today, only maybe a little delayed. After all, why were these people browsing the Thompson timeline in the first place? They very probably already had some doubt in them.
Same thing with Meyssan. If it wasn't for him, somebody would have written a 9/11 critical book sooner or later. Whoever the first author to release an inside job book, the reception could have been equally successful, thus only delaying the "money and fame for mee too" factor, not erasing it. Somebody's always the first, others try to repeat.
Conclusion
At this point it's becoming pretty obvious, that removing any single person, a couple of people, or even groups wouldn't have stopped 9/11 trutherism from spreading all over the place. There are just too many sources, too many theories, too many eager recipiants, and very easy access to these theories (we can't stop the internet, can we).
What's the point, then? There are always people who make up this stuff, and who buy this stuff. There are always those who are gullible, who want to blame the government, and those who find conspiracy theories exciting and realistic. We can't remove all conspiracy theorists from the history, nor from the future. We can try to stop them or slow them down, take pieces out of the puzzle, but nevertheless the outcome will be pretty much the same, sooner or later. Conspiracy fever spreads, reaches its peak, and later fades away. In this case the 9/11 truth virus spread in 2001-2006, reached it's peak in 2006 and has been fading away ever since. It's the time of the Internet and global reach. There sure are more events and more silly theories to come. Theories and theorists can't be stopped, but they can be fought with rationality. More and more people will learn their tricks and maybe in the future these fact-bending theorists will be less and less successful in spreading their stuff.
First Scenario
First the Holocaust deniers. I eliminated every know denier, as well as every speculative case (like an article published on a denier's site, although the author him/herself is not necessarily a denier).
These are the clear cases of theories and people behind them that are sourced to a non-denier.
- Alex Jones: Inside job! From day one.
- Demolition speculation: Multiple cases starting from day one.
- NORAD stand down
- Put option speculation
- No arabs on passenger lists
- "Pull it"
- The Paul Thompson timeline
- Thierry Meyssan's book "9/11: The Big Lie"
But on the other hand, we would clearly be missing some early stuff that originated from Holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers by default represent faulty logic, so naturally they were pretty quick to spread controversial ideas of 9/11 as well, and naturally they are disproportionately well represented within the truth movement.
If it wasn't for these deniers, we'd be missing the articles that made these theories popular:
- Fake passport finding speculation
- Fake Bin Laden speculation
- Global Hawk theories
- No hijacker theories
- Hani Hanjour piloting skill speculation
- Flight 93 shoot down theories
- Detailed analysis of WTC demolition (falling into footprint, black smoke speculation, toppling over, simultaneous column failure, pulverized concrete, design loads)
- Punchlines like "arabs with boxcutters" and "who writes this stuff"
- Plane swap speculation
- Voice simulation and fake phone calls
- 8 mile debris field at Shanksville
Most important of these denier related efforts is the detailed analysis of demolition by Jim McMichael, written a month after the attacks (not a known denier himself, but article released on a denier site). It solidified the demolition case and inspired multiple high profile truthers. An example: if this article and it's "followers" wouldn't have inspired Jim Hoffman (Hoffman has clearly stated the importance of this article to his views), his websites wouldn't have inspired even more people and we might not have Steven Jones as a truther (he was inspired by Hoffman's work). We all know what we wouldn't have, if we didn't have Steven Jones's truther efforts. Of course, this is all speculation. Hoffman could easily have been inspired by another article at a later date, thus producing the exact same outcome with maybe only a small delay.
Other scenarios
What if we remove some non-denier pieces of the early truther puzzle. Let's take Paul Thompson out of the equation. In a simplified speculation he would take Griffin and Gage with him, as well many others who entertained their first inside job thoughts while reading the Thompson timeline. Of course, once again, in a more realistic speculation some other person might have created a similar timeline to Thompson's at a later date, or the people who were inspired by Thompson might have found other inspiring sources, and the results would be exactly the same as we see today, only maybe a little delayed. After all, why were these people browsing the Thompson timeline in the first place? They very probably already had some doubt in them.
Same thing with Meyssan. If it wasn't for him, somebody would have written a 9/11 critical book sooner or later. Whoever the first author to release an inside job book, the reception could have been equally successful, thus only delaying the "money and fame for mee too" factor, not erasing it. Somebody's always the first, others try to repeat.
Conclusion
At this point it's becoming pretty obvious, that removing any single person, a couple of people, or even groups wouldn't have stopped 9/11 trutherism from spreading all over the place. There are just too many sources, too many theories, too many eager recipiants, and very easy access to these theories (we can't stop the internet, can we).
What's the point, then? There are always people who make up this stuff, and who buy this stuff. There are always those who are gullible, who want to blame the government, and those who find conspiracy theories exciting and realistic. We can't remove all conspiracy theorists from the history, nor from the future. We can try to stop them or slow them down, take pieces out of the puzzle, but nevertheless the outcome will be pretty much the same, sooner or later. Conspiracy fever spreads, reaches its peak, and later fades away. In this case the 9/11 truth virus spread in 2001-2006, reached it's peak in 2006 and has been fading away ever since. It's the time of the Internet and global reach. There sure are more events and more silly theories to come. Theories and theorists can't be stopped, but they can be fought with rationality. More and more people will learn their tricks and maybe in the future these fact-bending theorists will be less and less successful in spreading their stuff.
Last edited:
