Sunday, September 12, 2010

Why we love to hate conspiracy theories: 911 Truth as threat to the intelligentsia

by Denis G. Rancourt
This essay was first posted on the Activist Teacher blog.

Especially left and liberal professionals and service intellectuals but also right-wing members of the intelligentsia vehemently attack and ridicule “conspiracy theories” such as the present 911 Truth movement.


It’s as though power did not covertly orchestrate its predation of us? Is that not the modus operandi of power?

Is it so difficult to believe that the complex and highly successful military attack on US soil that was 911 (levelling three gigantic sky scrapers, blasting a hole into the Pentagon, and destroying four commercial jets and their passengers) was not orchestrated by a religious zealot from a cave in Afghanistan and executed by failed Cessna pilot trainees with box cutters? Or that those who measurably benefited in the trillions had nothing to do with it?

What the hell? Not even (admittedly rare) authoritative mainstream reports seem to matter [1].

What ever happened to “war is a racket” and “follow the money”?

In rigorous compliance with the true meanings of "academic freedom" [2] and "freedom of the press" virtually no academics or mainstream journalists have made it their research to find truth or to radically (at the root) question the establishment version.

Indeed, all the major and considered-radical academic pundits such as Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, have actively avoided the possibility that the 911 attacks could have been known or aided from within the finance-corporate-military complex.

What keeps them from crossing that line? What makes them demean attempts to cross that line? [3]

Similarly, even outspoken dissident parliamentary politicians such as George Galloway have ridiculed the concerns of 911 truthers (at his last public talk in Ottawa).

Is such self and projected censorship by star intellectuals only the result of the fear of being mobbed by ridicule? Is asking these questions in public fora so dangerous?

When barred and suppressed Afghan Member of Parliament Malalai Joya was asked about 911 by a truther in Ottawa last year she replied that those who sought answers in this matter should address their questions to the occupiers of the White House. To this writer’s knowledge, this is the furthest that any politician has gone in this direction, coming from “the bravest woman in Afghanistan” no less.

But what shocked the present writer more is the derision to which was subjected the truther at the Malalai Joya Ottawa event, at the hands of an “activist” and “progressive” crowd.


The intelligentsia appears to be addicted to the illusion that it has a monopoly on valid analysis and understanding. In order to preserve this illusion and to protect its standing in providing interpretations of the World, the intelligentsia must limit the scope of all investigations to domains that fall within its self-established interpretational paradigms (right-left, power politics, geopolitical chess board, corporate motives, etc.) and self-established research protocols.

Those paradigms and protocols, in turn, and the rigorously followed discipline of not supposing the worst in one’s research stance, were established in academia at the time when “academic freedom” was being defined by the cornerstone nineteenth century US battles for professional independence in academia. The academics and society lost that battle [2]:
“[T]he economists were the first professional analysts to be “broken in,” in a battle that defined the limits of academic freedom in universities. The academic system would from that point on impose a strict operational separation between inquiry and theorizing as acceptable and social reform as unacceptable.

Any academic wishing to preserve her position understood what this meant. As a side product, academics became virtuosos at nurturing a self-image of importance despite this fatal limitation on their societal relevance, with verbiage such as: The truth is our most powerful weapon, the pen is mightier than the sword, a good idea can change the world, reason will take us out of darkness, etc.”

Academics and “radical professors” train the intelligentsia…

And power owns the media.


But much more importantly power owns us, owns our jobs, owns students at school and owns the homeless on the street, the First Peoples on the reserves and the prisoners in the jails. As long as we are owned, information about abuse of power is irrelevant for social change.

This is the sociological fact that the 911 Truth movement has failed to recognize [4]. Truth will not set us free. Truth and information do not lead to action. It’s not a question of how many folks know the truth.

It’s only a question of what the truth means in real terms to however few individuals and will these individuals rebel, actually rebel and individually take back power over their lives.

Contrary to the mantra of our left academic idols, truth and research are not threatening to power in a culture of subservience and obedience. In such a culture, radical-in-thought academics only stabilize the system by neutralizing the more action-minded youth. [5]

In such a culture, the only truth that is threatening to power is one that it perceives as an attack on its self-image [6]. And, in such a culture, psychological self-image arising from power’s connection to the broader society is the only force that can move power to constrain itself [6]. In this measure, in the present culture, 911 Truth could have an impact. In this way, some of the low-level actual perpetrators and facilitators of 911 could eventually be sacrificed in show trials or in mainstream smear campaigns.

In conclusion, the intelligentsia works at protecting itself (and by extension the system) and therefore will be a visceral opponent of 911 Truth until it can integrate 911 Truth and participate in neutralizing 911 Truth in order for power to save face. Or, some citizens might actually rebel? The extent and projection/potential of such pockets of rebellion is the only force capable of leveraging real concessions from power [7][8][9].


[1] “Major media articles on 9-11 raise questions” by Fred Burks, 2010, Want to Know.

[2] “Some big lies of science” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[3] “Questioning Foundations: An Interview with Denis Rancourt” by Michael Barker, 2010, Dissident Voice.

[4] “911 Truth” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[5] “Against Chomsky” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2008.

[6] “Psycho-biological basis for image leverage and the case of Israel” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[7] “On the racism and pathology of left progressive First-World activism” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[8] “Roundabout as conflict-avoidance versus Malcolm X’s psychology of liberation” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

[9] “Murder and genocide are natural, therefore rebel!” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.

Denis G. Rancourt was a tenured and full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada. He practiced several areas of science which were funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals. He developed popular activism courses and was an outspoken critic of the university administration and a defender of student and Palestinian rights. He was fired for his dissidence in 2009 by a president who is a staunch supporter of Israeli policy. [See]


Anonymous said...

Shaughnessy here. "Or that those who measurably benefited in the trillions had nothing to do with it?"

who made trillions off of 9/11?

Denis Rancourt said...

hi Shaughnessy,

Good question! Who benefited?

Your quest is what is known as "follow the money".

Any guesses before you go off and read stuff...?

Anonymous said...

"follow the money"

Let's start with the obvious:

Activist Reader said...

Hi Denis,

I was just speaking about this the other night--9/11 (which hit close to home, not speaking only literally), and how it certainly appeared, from the way the buildings collapsed, to be an implosion. And yet, we all saw the two airplanes crash into the buildings. That leaves us with the sole question: why would our own government do this? What would be the benefit? I am of the belief that the crazier and more complex the reason, the more likely it is to be true, but...barring that. it's hard to explain. What do you think?

Stef said...

slightly less obvious...


Bank of America among 38 stocks in SEC's attack probe

and then there's the pretty graph on this page...

Opium production in Afghanistan

and not forgettting the $2.3 trillion which had already been 'made', as announced on 9/10 and pretty much forgotten after 9/11...

Rumsfeld 2.3 Trillion Dollars missing Pentagon 1 DAY b4/9-11

trollfinder general said...

@activist reader

"That leaves us with the sole question: why would our own government do this? What would be the benefit?"

You personally might only have one question but who is this 'us'?

And I have seen images of two planes crashing into two buildings

Three buildings collapsed

And what exactly do you mean by 'our own government'? Depending on your definition that could encompass many millions of people working in hundreds and thousands of entities. It seems unlikely to me that they could all be in on 9/11

And if you're looking for the author of this blog to advocate or endorse the craziest and most complex explanation for 9/11 he could a lot worse than sticking with that fairytale about the shadowy, box cutter armed, criminal network masterminded by a sick old man in a cave motivated by a hatred of American freedoms

Stef said...

There's an excrutiating example of a self-appointed member of the left-wing intelligentsia spouting an unrelenting torrent of psychobabble about 9/11 conspiracy theorists here...

11 Sept. 2010

Denis Rancourt said...

Feedback from my mail box:

From: Professor Anthony Hall <>
Date: Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: link about 911...
To: Denis Rancourt <>

Hi Denis.

Thanks for this link. It seems you have done more research since we ran into an impasse in discussing our views of what brought down the three WTC towers.

Why not recognize those academics who have been engaged in the quest for 9/11 truth. In Canada, for instance, we have Graeme MacQueen of MacMaster, or John McMurtry and Michael Keefer of Guelph U, or Michel Chossudovsky of UOttawa and Global Peter Dale Scott, the son of F.R. Scott, has done some cutting edge work on 9/11. The theologist, David Ray Griffin, is generally regarded as the Dean of 9/11 studies. Of his 36 books, the last nine are on 9/11.

Check out the treatment of Kevin Barrett who was forced to leave the academy for attempting to explore 9/11 Truth. Barrie Zwicker in his Towers of Deception has a whole chapter dealing with Chomsky's 9/11 play. Chomsky dictated one of the first books on 9/11 declaring without proof the enemy to be entirely external to the structure of US, Israeli and capitalist power. Why? Whose interests was he serving?

I could go on. My own graduate student, Joshua Blakeney, is doing his MA thesis on academic controversies regarding the origins of the Global War on Terror. He is playing particular attention to Cass Sunstein, the Harvard law prof. whose psychobabble on "conspiracy theorists" is truly a disgrace to the academy.

My Earth into Property is now published. In it I go into some of these issues in some detail.



(posted with permission)

the_last_name_left said...

Why do intelligent people deride conspiracism such as 911 Troof?

Because there's absolutely zero positive evidence to substantiate it. All you have are suspicions, 2+2=5, etc

If you had good evidence such that people couldn't ignore it, you might have cause to complain about being ignored and derided. Until then....dream on.

911 Troof also has a major problem with fascism - 911 Troof is riddled with it. This is the reason Israel and Jews feature so predominantly in 911 Troof - organised fascism is using 911 Troof to attain 2 main objectives:

1) to create and exploit cynicism towards liberal democracy
2) to insinuate anti-semitism and a fascist agenda into venues otherwise denied it.

Many of the flaws of 911 Troof are a consequence of this.

Another criticism - 911 Troof is incapable and/or unwilling to recognise the fascism in its ranks, and it refuses to even address the problem.

An example - the link provided earlier - to Mike Rivero's WRH. Mike Rivero has many connections to the far-right, he promoted Curt Maynard, promotes Willis Carto and his fascist propaganda, holocaust denial, anti-semitism etc.

Denis Rancourt said...

The article has now been re-posted on several others blogs and sites.

Here a good comment:

Very important issues

Thank you for writing this.

This is an issue I have addressed many times, and I think it's crucial that we understand the mechanisms at work that literally place blinders over the academic left. I think it's crucial to understand Chomsky's position on this, no matter how much I disagree with it. I am a big supporter of Chomsky's work, and have read most of it.

When you ask, "What keeps them from crossing that line? What makes them demean attempts to cross that line?", it's important to remember that Chomsky's main argument is that the State routinely conducts crimes that are very visible, and that there isn't a need to focus on crimes that are not so visible, and indeed require an uphill battle to expose. So the murder of 1 million people in Iraq is clearly visible, clearly constitutes a war crime, and there is a precedent to bring people to justice. In fact, that is Chomsky's goal, expose the crimes of state, partially by using their own documents and rhetoric. And he has documented these crimes for over 50 years. Ad infinitum.

However, the key question is,


Denis Rancourt said...

And this one at Dissident Voice:


Gary S. Corseri said on September 13th, 2010 at 10:12am #

This is a brilliant analysis, multilayered and profound, about the way Power has corrupted and despoiled our modern lives and delivered us, piece-meal, fragmented, atomized and confused to the New World Order!

Dr. Rancourt, Professor Rancourt–and he is a true Professor, whether “terminated” by fools or not–has outlined the ways in which self-censorship and “professional standards” of “intellectual inquiry” delimit such inquiry and rot the results. As a former academic, I can also attest to the rigid separation of inquiry/theorizing and social reform that batters the integrity of real truth-seekers and action-minded academics. Rancourt is right again about the necessity to preserve the “image,” the “self-importance,” of the profession (that, among other things, he did not add, keep the paychecks and the grants and the extra lecture money rolling in).

This short essay begins with questioning the official narratives about 9/11. It’s timely and pertinent on that measure alone; but it probes even more deeply into our collective psychic space–the simulacrum of the world we have inherited and created; and the fears that keep us chained to half-truths, non-truths and sheer absurdities.

the_last_name_left said...

Conspiracy Theory as a Substitute for Social Critique - Peter Staudenmaier

Anonymous said...

I thought you were going to make a slightly different point - 9-11 Truth is a threat to academia mainly because of timing.

Here's what I mean - I'm a "9-11 Truther," but I wasn't until 2005. Academics can't admit - usually even to themselves, that they were fooled that badly for years, and then that is was non-academics and other nobodies who broke most of the information.

The job of a "professor" is to "profess" to know things. Admitting to having been fooled is the opposite of professing to be an expert. They can't keep their professional and even self images and also embrace 9-11 Truth.

The real awakening is that these people aren't geniuses - either the profs at Harvard or the planners of 9-11 - they just have massive resources and institutions backing them.

tal said...

Insert "on terror" after "war" and this quote from Rudolf Steiner from 1917 is as relevant today as it was during the Great War and as unacknowledged. Just as the issues themselves are similarly ignored:

"In an earlier age there existed a tyranny which forced people to believe only what was recognized by Rome. A far greater tyranny will come about when neither philosophers nor scientists decide what should be believed but when the tools of those secret brotherhoods alone specify what is to be believed, when they alone make sure no human soul may harbor any beliefs other than those dictated by them, when nothing new is done in the world except what is specified by them alone is the goal of these brotherhoods. And though I have nothing against idealists - for idealism is always something good - certain idealists are naive if they believe that these things are only temporary and will disappear once the war comes to an end. The war is only the beginning of they way things are tending to go. And the only possibility of getting beyond this lies in the clear and proper understanding of what is going on. Nothing else is of any use. Therefore - although certain quarters will not be pleased to hear and see them and will take steps against them - there will always have to be people who clearly point out the full intensity of what is really going on, people who can't be deterred from pointing out the full intensity of what is happening."

It is no longer just political issues
that are controlled:

Anonymous said...

@the last name left

re: WRH article

Regardless of Rivero's political persuasions and personal beliefs, the question still remains whether or not Silverstein profited from 9/11? Silverstein did profit from 9/11 and Rivero provides as his sources agencies not connected to him in any way (ex., Forbes).

Why not criticize the article??? How would you react to the article were it not from Rivero?

It is quite ironic that while you write:

"If you had good evidence such that people couldn't ignore it, you might have cause to complain about being ignored and derided. Until then....dream on"

you attack the person rather than addressing the evidence. This tactic is often used by the intelligentsia when logical argumentation fails, as was the case in the dismissal of Rancourt from the University of Ottawa.

trollfinder general said...

The last time I looked readership figures for both the print and television news media were nose-diving, so 'last name left' is right about one thing, people are choosing to ignore nonsense

Loved the line about organised fascism covertly infiltrating 9/11 'Troof' to subvert liberal (sic.) democracy and spread anti-semitism

As well as being an half-arsed attempt at a slurring anyone who has the temerity to question the glaring flaws in official narratives that would also be an example of a ... conspiracy theory

oh, the irony

SM said...

Great story

Look at how power crushed rose o'donnel, when she wanted to bring the film makers of lose change on the veiw.

And you are right, if you want to eat, make sure you don't cross the line power establishes.

the_last_name_left said...

Well, what is there to criticise?

A lament that conspiracism isn't taken seriously? And for very good reasons?

Did Silverstein make "a profit"?

[What were the possibilities? A profit, a loss, or break even -- it has to be one of 3.]

Seemingly Silverstein tried to obtain a lower insurance cover when he acquired the buildings - he wanted to do it cheaply. The insurers insisted on a higher level of cover - not Silverstein.

That is never mentioned. Why? Because it doesn't fit your conspiracy narrative. Cherry-picking.

That's one reason why conspiracism is so derided by so many intellectuals.

Here's another: it's always claimed the shoot-down orders and hierarchical responsibility were changed in June/July 2001.

Whilst it's true there was an administrative update to the order, referencing some new/reorganised departments, there was no change in the actual orders themselves - those remained as they had been since they were previously changed - in the 90s when Clinton was President.

Again, that doesn't fit the narrative, so it's ignored.

And anyway - even if Silverstein made a profit, even if the orders had been changed - so what? You're still left with nothing other than your own suspicion which is filling in all the blanks that YOU are supposed to be filling. It is up to conspiracism to prove both the facts and that they're connected to "the conspiracy".

9 years and you haven't gotten an inch towards it.

With no evidence, one wonders upon what your beliefs are based.

Why believe it if there's no evidence?

9 years ago I was a 'troofer' -- there was a reason to be: a lack of evidence, an a priori sense of disbelief in collapse etc.

But 9 years later and we have mountains of evidence for what is derisorily called "the official story" yet not a thing in support of conspiracy or any of its details - such as explosives for demolition.

If one goes on evidence, there is no choice - everything points quite unremarkably to 19 hijackers and radical militant Islamic responsibility. There is absolutely zero evidence for a MIHOP conspiracy.

the_last_name_left said...

So why believe it if there is no evidence?

And when cosidering intellectual and academic hostility towards 911 conspiracism why not recognise this fact of a complete lack of evidence?

I mean, there's all this about 'the academy' and its jealous flaws but absolutely nothing suggesting the academy quite rightly recognises there's absolutely no positive evidence for any of it, and what 'evidence' there is is concocted to lead the reader to conclude "conspiracism": the movement and its body of work is full of lies, distortions, insinuations, false allegations, myth, inaccuracy. Its personnel and institutions overflow with connections to organised fascism - eg 2 of 'the movement' leaders - Rivero and Alex Jones - promote 911 via Willis Carto, Eustace Mullins, David Duke, Christopher Bollyn, Curt Maynard, Reverend Pike.

I mean, don't you ever stop and wonder how it is that on this issue you believe the same things as much of Stromfront?

The same things as Willis Carto and his welter of far-right propagandists and holocaust deniers?

Shermer concluded that 911 Troof shared a lot with holocaust denial, which is true. What he missed was the reason - they're much the same people behind both.

Go and look where much of your supposed evidence originated?

And ask yourself why you believe such people?

Chris Bollyn for example. Willis Carto for example. Mike Rivero, for example.

The backstory of 911 Troof is that it provides an avenue for fascism to insinuate anti-semitism - especially into discourse otherwise denied it. 911 Troof has proven a very successful propaganda tool for organised fascism - both as insidious communication and as recruitment vehicle. Few people will listen to the vitriolic thugs wrapped in Swaztikas like Stormfront - but say the same things under cover of a 911 conspiracy forum and you have a willing and enthusiastic audience prepared to defend "the truth" with vicious and uncompromising vigour. The internet version of blackshirts.

If you don't know that much of 911 Troof is based upon and driven by fascism, then you haven't done your homework.

Anonymous said...

@the last name left

"Did Silverstein make "a profit"?

[What were the possibilities? A profit, a loss, or break even -- it has to be one of 3.]

Seemingly Silverstein tried to obtain a lower insurance cover when he acquired the buildings - he wanted to do it cheaply. The insurers insisted on a higher level of cover - not Silverstein."

So then why would Silverstein take the whole matter to court and argue that since there were 2 towers, there were 2 terrorist attacks, especially when the original insurance settlement treating the matter as a single terrorist attack was willing to pay out more than enough of a profit? Why squeeze the piggy bank dry?

And then there is the video footage of Silverstein saying to "pull it" regarding WTC-7 later that day. The "pulling" of WTC-7 is acknowledged by Silverstein himself that it was planned demolition. No planes hit WTC-7 and there was not even a remote chance that the fires in WTC-7 could bring the building down. And if WTC-7 was "pulled" the same day, 9/11, via controlled demolition then it is not possible to have prepared the entire "pull" operation in a matter of hours.

Something was hiding in WTC-7 and it needed to be destroyed. Do some research and come back and tell us what government organizations had offices in WTC-7.

Also, why was the steel from WTC immediately taken away shipped to China to be smoldered. Here is the largest terrorist attack on US soil on two of the worlds most tallest buildings. You're telling me that the government is not interested in such an engineering failure? There is a lot of evidence of buildings around the world built to much lower standards than WTC and that burned for DAYS at much higher temperatures before collapsing.

So, if someone comes and burns your house down, you're going to tell the police and fire department, "ahh, just demolition the whole thing, send what you can to be recycled, clear the debris, then go and investigate"? Does this make any sense to you? Or maybe you just don't care because it's an insurance write off? But no insurance company will pay off ordinary Joe Schmo without a proper investigation.

Yeah, people who question the official story of 9/11 are the idiots...

the_last_name_left said...

Anon: So then why would Silverstein take the whole matter to court ......

Why indeed? You don't have anything on it - except suspicion.

And why?

Do you really think insurance companies are angels and/or property magnates are people happy to get screwed over or fail to maximise every opportunity?

You feel justified in imagining insurance co's and a (jewish!) property developer are so self-interested and corrupt that they'd take part and profit from 911 but you discount the milder form of the argument which accounts for the court action, disputes etc.

Yet you have absolutely no reason to do so, other than pure suspicion of course.

What do you have? Nothing.

anon: Silverstein saying to "pull it" regarding WTC-7 later that day. The "pulling" of WTC-7 is acknowledged by Silverstein himself that it was planned demolition.

Rubbish. You can't even get your own claim accurate.

Honestly, it's pathetic that Silverstein saying "pull it" is amongst your "evidence". It doesn't make the least bit of sense let alone does it go anywhere near proving your demolition theory - for which there is absolutely no evidence either, btw.

WTC7 - firepeople testimony shows that experienced professionals thought the building at risk of collapse - because of

-fully engaged, unfought fires
-damage sustained during earlier collapses
-engineers transits were put on the building to measure its creep/movement
-sounds (creaking - movement)

Call the firemen and others liars?

If you refuse, then you must explain how your grand conspiracy brought about the conditions such that experienced professionals (and their equipment) were (wrongly) convinced the building would collapse (when, according to you, there was no possible danger of collapse (other than by explosives)).

How did they convince experienced professionals that the building would collapse? Did they fake the smoke pouring out of WTC7? Fake the fires? The damage? Even the building's movement?

Please explain?

And if all these professionals suspected the building would collapse, how come you - sat at home watching youtube - know so different?

You can't simply discount all the evidence you don't like. Nor can you just pretend "all the real evidence is locked away or destroyed". How do YOU know? Based on WHAT? That Bushco are a bunch of bastards? Not good enough, I'm afraid.

anon: why was the steel from WTC immediately taken away shipped to China to be smoldered.

Oh gee, this again! Simple answer - it wasn't.

Do you really think all the rubble should have been left in situ and every piece looked at rigorously?

In the real world that isn't going to happen. The clear-up involved a search for notable and important pieces of steel. It is impossible to check every piece - they would still be at it.....and as you say, one would expect american engineering to be anxious for some answers. Maybe that's why they spent so long and so much resources on looking into the collapses, WTC7 especially.

Maybe that's why NIST makes many new recommendations for changes to building codes etc - and actually gives a very stark warning, if you read it that way.

the_last_name_left said...

Still - notice that you still fail to produce a single piece of positive evidence for a govt./inside job conspiracy? Not a single piece of physical or documentary evidence.....just these few little incidents and myths cobbled together on the back of suspicion.

You have to do much better than this if you expect to be taken seriously. And that's the answer to this article's question - "why is conspiracism derided by academe?"

Why wouldn't it be? Look at the contents of it? Worse than empty - it's full of rubbish.

anon: Yeah, people who question the official story of 9/11 are the idiots...

Well, it's looking increasingly like that. 9 years later and not a single piece of positive evidence for conspiracy and yet the believers hold to their "theory" with an implacable embrace.

Why? Why do people ever begin to believe it when there is no evidence for it? Why do they continue to do so? Why do they evangelise for it?

I would rather follow an evidence-based method, and be wrong....It's far better than rejecting the evidence-based approach and (somehow) just happening to be right.

Why anybody would expect academe to behave any differently is beyond me. If you're going to start calling engineering reports and suchlike "mere fabrications" to further "a massive conspiracy" then you are lost.

But look how the conspiracists treat Bentham Open by contrast? They claim it is "peer-reviewed" beccause they want the authority that comes with it - even as they decry proper peer-reviewed articles and proper authorities as corrupt liars, or some such.

This is just brazen intellectual dishonesty.

I suggest you go and re-examine your "evidence", and consider how much evidence which contradicts your thesis you ignore. Go and check? re-assess?

And be careful not to conflate "the government story" of hijacking etc with the objective reality and evidence. It isn't "911conspiracy" vs "government approved narrative" - other options are available. The phrase "The official story" is deployed as a rhetorical device so as to paint non-conspiracists as lackeys of the government machine - paid shills, whatever. It attempts to setup a false dichotomy - where non-conspiracists are hive-minded supporters of 'the government'. Of course, governments have cause of their own to lie and secrets to hide - but such lies and secrets do not necessarily prove "the big lie" or make it any more likely to be true - which is the basic thrust of conspiracism's claims and MO: create suspicion and the rest falls into place. No evidence is needed - better, a lack of evidence works all the more effectively for who can dispute it when there's nothing of substance or import there anyway?

And so now up goes the cry "Why won't the academy touch it!?"

Why should they?! what is there to touch?

That Silverstein "said" something!

What is the academy supposed to do with that?

And, in contradiction of this thread's claim, there are in fact academic investigations into 911, in all sorts of ways. In building/structural engineering especially.

The question is more properly put: "why don't Troofers respond?"

Trollfinder General said...


You are playing a dishonest game here.

Cherry picking weaknesses in selected 'Troofer' claims is not the same thing as validating the official story.

Nor does smearing this blog with a series of patronising, abusive comments

Nor does mocking 'conspiracy theorists', whilst simultaneously pushing your own conspiracy theory. Not a very consistent or 'intellectual' line of attack

You don't even seem to understand what 'fascism' is, even though you refer to it repeatedly

I cannot think of a single movement that has not been subject to attempted co-option by extremists pursuing their own covert agendas. So, why should 9/11 scepticism be any different?

I'm personally immensely appreciative of you attempting to set an impossible standard for 9/11 scepticism but, with all respect, you can stick it

Stef said...

This may come as a stunning surprise to Last Name Left but a fair few of what he sneeringly refers to as Troofers will freely acknowledge that, much of the time, we only have suspicions to point to. That's an inevitable consequence of evidence being withheld from the public domain

I do not know, or pretend to know, what happened on 9/11, or 7/7 here in the UK, and I dislike the '9/11 was an inside job' mantra intensely.

What I do know is that the Official Narratives do not stack up and suspicion, if well-grounded, is a perfectly healthy thing and is arguably a necessary prerequisite for a criminal investigation

The case against OBL as the mastermind behind 9/11 has most certainly not been proven beyond all reasonable doubt

And the validity of that proposition is absoluetly independent of how ever many racist lunatics (anti-semites and zionists alike) may agree or disagree with it

Anonymous said...

@the last name left

"Do you really think all the rubble should have been left in situ and every piece looked at rigorously?"

Thank you for agreeing that evidence at a crime scene (WTC) was destroyed. Destroying evidence at a crime scene is against the law. Thank you for agreeing that a proper investigation never took place. Thank you for agreeing that because a proper investigation never took place, the official story is either (a) fabricated, and/or (b) is not complete.

The burden of proof is on the people presenting the official story. The 9/11 truth movement does not have to present evidence, it only has to demonstrate that the official story put forward has holes in it. If you look at the key people involved in the 9/11 truth movement, they are over and over saying "we need a proper investigation", "give the public access to all the documents so that a proper investigation can be conducted." They are not necessarily saying that the government was involved. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Some people may believe conspiracy theories, but that does not characterize the movement.

Until that happens, consider some of the scientific evidence of controlled demolition, i.e., from physicist Steven Jones and others. Consider also Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth ( What about eyewitness testimonies from people that survived WTC saying they heard explosions etc? What about the video footage of floors in WTC below where the impact of the planes happened exploding before the impact even occurred? Is this not evidence??? The building started to explode before the planes hit.

You put forward the official 9/11 story, so you need to back it up. It is not a conspiracy for us to simply question something that doesn't make sense. The official 9/11 Omission Report does not make sense.

Trollfinder General said...

"If you don't know that much of 911 Troof is based upon and driven by fascism, then you haven't done your homework"

I've done plenty of homework and I've concluded that it is the War on Terror which is based upon and driven by fascism

And I suspect my conception of fascism is better defined than yours

And if and when I become aware of hundreds of thousands of people being slaughtered, maimed, occupied, subjugated and looted by a corporate war machine in the name of 9/11 'Troof' I might stop thinking you're either willfully dishonest or plain ignorant

Andrew Johnson said...

This is an interesting blog.

I understand you have recently been on Jim Fetzer's programme to discuss these sorts of issues.

I wondered if you would be interested in a free e-book I have written, which includes my experiences with Mr Fetzer (he invited me into the Scholars for 911 Truth Group and later onto the steering committee).

I sometimes wonder if the research I have been involved with takes people to places they are reluctant to go...

psikeyhackr said...

How can any so called "Intelligentsia" not know enough grade school Newtonian Physics to figure out how absurd it is to think that airliners less than 200 tons could totally obliterate buildings 2000 times their mass?

And in NINE YEARS don't demand to know the distributions of steel and concrete. Can skyscrapers be made to hold themselves up if the designers did not figure out how to get those distributions correct? So how could airliner impacts and supposed collapses be analyzed without that information? But INTELLIGENTSIA so not demand that data!

Sounds more like DUMBentsia. Is it that the humanities intelligentsia can't handle physics?