reply to post by Griff
Griff, I am not arguing with you.
Perhaps a better way of saying what you objected to might be this: there are bad actors (calling names, etc) all around. There is no doubt about that.
Anyone can see this bad behavior in this very thread.
I think, perhaps, the absolute, biggest failure of the truth club is their inability to separate their personal, political leanings from the pursuit
of truth. There is no “official story”, quite literally. There are numerous studies, findings of fact, investigations, witness testimony (I could
go on for pages, but you get my drift) etc, that form a preponderance of evidence. We skeptics are only invested in the truth
. We, as skeptics,
don't have a group-think concerning politics. I am not a "government guy". I think it undeniable that the truth club does indeed
political tone to it.
The simple fact is, the truth club has engaged in partisan politics under the wrappings of 9-11 “truth” for more than six years. They, the larger
collection of people, engage in “us versus them” mentality because that's how they see the world. Truther web sites are positively
with political ramblings and, frankly, a fair amount of hate speech that has absolutely nothing to do with evidence. But, that's the
thing. To them it is
Truthers know in their heart of hearts that 9-11 was an inside job and those that dialog honestly will admit they really don't care what the evidence
says because they know the “real” story. You're either an enlightened truther, or your a government spook of some kind.
We skeptics aren't thinking like that. We aren't a collective siege mentality. We are a collective of like minds that honestly evaluate the evidence
and look for answers. Truthers decide on outcomes and look for evidence to support their pre-drawn conclusions.
This is exactly what has happened with CIT, IMO. The constant writhing under the glaring lights of criticism is because they aren't looking at the
evidence and following it to it's conclusion(s). They decided what happened and have been looking for evidence of this forgone conclusion for years
and years. The problem is, the evidence doesn't in any way support the notion(s) of CIT. But they keep saying it does in spite of the too-easy to
highlight, massive contradictions in their own witnesses, the mathematical implausibility of their suggested flight paths, the thousands of first
responders who cleaned up the aftermath, the flight data recorders, the FAA radar tapes, the phone calls from the actual plane in question, absolutely
no evidence of a fly over from the Double Tree security tape, not a single witness who saw the plane fly over, the dead bodies of the passengers
the Pentagon and on and on and on the real evidence chain goes. However, CIT ignores
this real evidence in favor of
recounted witness testimony more than six years later. That's it. That's the sum total of the no plane/wrong plane nonsense.
That's not science. That's propaganda. The so-called truth movement is interested in neither 9-11 or the truth. Honest to goodness, I believe the
so-called truth “movement” to be the biggest oxymoron ever.
The truth club has failed on an epic scale and continues to do so. From my perspective the only question is just how far the club is willing to go
into la-la land. We've already “theories” that include holograms, mini nukes, space based weapons platforms, focused sun beams and lots and lots
of G-men planting explosives, executing thousands of witnesses and doppler sound machines.
I can't wait to see what kookiness the next seven years brings. One thing is for sure: it will be comedy gold.
[edit on 16-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]