Current Issue: Fallacy of the 'big tent'
David Shayler's recent comments about missiles and holograms being "the truth" directly undermine the credibility of the movement, and I find it entirely unacceptable that an ex-MI5 agent wouldn't be aware of this. We must not simply excuse this behavior as potentially naive.
People who think that planes didn't hit the WTC are simply incorrect. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Period. End of story. Thank you, and goodnight. Its not true! Not truth.
Sure, there is a great deal of intriguing speculation about what hit the buildings, but that's a far cry from having a valid theory supported by adequate evidence. I've reviewed the evidence regarding missiles, holograms, and video manipulation. I don't find it very compelling and it does not lead me to the same conclusions as those who promote it. So do we, in the name of having a 'big tent' of mutual support, allow things that are NOT TRUE to be an active part of a 'truth movement'?
What role have these lines of inquiry served in 9/11 truth movement? In my experience these hypotheses have lead to the following results. Talking points for mainstream news seeking to present our cause in the most incredible manner possible. A point of cleavage within the movement between those with a more scientific approach, and those who are inspired more by imagery and intrigue. A continuous distraction as we debate factual details instead of helping inspire one another to take action.
As this negative impact on the movement serves the interests of the institution, is it not reasonable to assume that our infiltrators would be supporting this approach? We know we are infiltrated, and acting like we can ignore this is dangerous. Of course, what these people are doing is a lot more important that who they are specifically, which is nearly impossible to determine. We must identify the strategies of subversion. What do YOU think our infiltrators would be doing?
There are hundreds of books about the JFK assassination, many of them written by people who also think aliens have invaded the Earth. There's certainly no 'big tent;' in that movement. In fact there are documented cases of obvious attempts to lead people away from the most relevant facts. Just like 9/11, different agencies are competing to pass the blame. The 9/11 Truth Movement should not be viewed as a 'big tent' for the same reason. Some of the people in this movement, who are trying very hard to appear genuine, are in fact trying to undermine or re-direct our efforts.
So if we assume that these people exist, and that they would be trying to exercise some public influence over our message, then some of those people and organizations who claim to support our efforts must be corrupt. And I'm not willing to say its a waste of time to consider this just because we can't figure out exactly who they are. Once again, its about identifying the strategies. Unfortunately, there are some influential people within the movement who are quite obviously doing things that undermine our credibility. Saying that missiles hidden by holograms hit the WTC is bad! BAD BAD BAD!!!! Its not just another opinion of someone who cares about the truth in their own unique way.
And where are these theories in the movement? Michael Ruppert, Barrie Zwicker, Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson, Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin. As far as I'm concerned the contribution of these people, and those who share similar priorities, is the core of our movement. And none of these people consider these hypotheses worthy of mention.
I'm really trying to not let this debate get reduced into a matter of style or opinion. "No planes" theories provide no contribution to our establishing probable cause to suspect complicity. They very often come from people who appear far less interested in the most well founded evidence. And ultimately, they are used by mainstream shills to question our sanity.
There is a definitive strategic decision to be made here. You either think the 9/11 truth movement should promote only its best founded evidence and theories, or you think it should also promote is more speculative hypotheses. Can we afford to have the 'big tent' mentality in a revolutionary movement highly susceptible to espionage and subversion?
No!
I anticipate the possible responses of people in the movement who might get on me about how we all just need to get along. Or how I need to have a friendly tone about everything. Or how I should engage these people in debate. Or how I should simply provide a better example. Or how I should not alienate naive yet well intended people pushing for the truth.
No!
Representing the truth is not bending into popular appeals to unity that subvert that effort. The atomic weight of argon doesn't change based on popular opinion, and large airplanes hit the WTC.
(Disclaimer: I fully support the totally open exploration of all facts and the wildest of speculation in attempting to understand those facts. That's good science. The 9/11 truth movement research community is an essential part of the whole. But as I've said many times, what the movement promotes is very different than the sum total of all its research. We promote the best we have to offer.)