Why 'Debunkers' Help The 911 Truth Movement

Why 'Debunkers' Help The 911 Truth Movement By Douglas Herman Exclusive to Rense.com 10-11-6

Two kinds of 9-11 truth deniers (debunkers) exist today: Those who deny our government has the expertise to carry out the 9-11 attack, and those who deny our government is diabolical enough to do it. Both are sadly mistaken.

If you present them with the many suspicious anomalies of 9-11, they demand your proof. If you present them with proof, they deny it with scarcely a glance. If you mention the scientific laws that were broken on 9-11, they claim you are no authority. If you quote an authority, they claim he is no expert in that particular field.

All truths passes through three stages, said the philosopher Schopenauer. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Debunkers, those people who adamantly deny government involvement in the 9-11 conspiracy, who adamantly deny such a conspiracy could even occur, are stuck in the first and second stages.

At first it may seem we are battling an insurgency here. The debunkers are strong, well-organized and well-funded. They are smart. They have strength and numbers; cunning and clever intelligence. They use persuasive power and intimidation, propaganda and a network of allies.

Their strongest attribute is their sincere belief that to "debunk" your every argument--no matter how sound--is the purest form of patriotism. Indeed, Saul of Tarsus believed he was a pure, patriotic warrior for God, persecuting the early Christian believers. That is, until he reportedly got knocked off his horse and changed his name to Paul and became a believer himself.

The saddest part of our struggle with this insurgency is that many of these debunkers appear to be honest but misguided patriots. They range from diehard conservatives, believers in the US government's version of 9-11 events, to the so-called, "Left Gatekeepers," the strident liberal critics of an increasingly dictatorial state who nonetheless believe every key component of the 9-11 attack as told to them by their government. The exact same government they loudly criticize for lying to them in every other facet.

Debunkers, not content in their core beliefs, slam those of us who question any facet of 9-11. They deride us as conspiracy nuts and loonies. Or worse, desecraters and traitors.

We in the 9-11 Truth Movement are battling a desperate insurgency. Desperation is the key word; time is not on their side. They recognize the rising danger of a well-informed American citizenry. From Leftists Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky to Neocon apologists and 9-11 debunkers Tucker Carlson, Hannity & Colmes and Condi Rice, they have shouldered the government's propaganda burden to suppress the rising tide of information and clarion calls that clamor for a true investigation of 9-11 events.

Recently a new columnist at Counterpunch.com attempted to debunk and defuse the many 9-11 inconsistencies in a feature, In Defense of Conspiracy: 9/11, in Theory and in Fact. Diana Johnstone wrote, "Who profits from the crime?"---but without really acknowledging any of those rich and powerful people who profitted immensely. I emailed her and she responded about a week later.

"Dear readers and critics, Thank you for your comments on my 9/11 piece...Please understand that I have been snowed under by responses -- over 50,000 words, plus attachments and web site references, still coming."

Ouch. The surging tidal wave of the 9-11 truth movement had engulfed another debunker.

But just why are debunkers good for the 9-11 truth movement? Because they serve a great purpose. And as mentioned, many of them are true patriots, good, conscientious citizens. They want what we want. Good honest government.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of so-called debunkers is that they prod, goad, ridicule and agitate. They challenge us--and who doesn't like a good challenge?---to get our 9-11 facts straight. Prodding us to dig deeper and sift the truth from the fiction. Goading us to devise more convincing arguments. Ridiculing us for embracing whatever rumor we may have heard as scientific fact. Agitating us to such a degree we stubbornly redouble our efforts.

I have one such agitator. His name is Jan Burton. I had considered spamming Jan but what he writes refreshes me, challenges me. And much of what he writes has a great deal of hard truth based on facts.

Jan is no troll, intent on simple provocation. He dares me to call those involved. He prods me. He agitates and exasperates me. If every one of us in the so-called Truth Movenment did as much prodding and goading of our local newspaper editor, US Representative or local structural engineer, would we or would we not eventually wear them down?

As Paul wore down his critics.

I believe--and I may be wrong--that behind most 9-11 deniers, most debunkers are good and decent people. Should half of them ever became convinced 9-11 was an inside job, they would become as forceful as Paul. A more powerful force for change than most of us have been.

Footnote: In my last column, "OKC & WTC: The Case For Controlled Demolition," I noted the many suspicious fires that ignited in WTC-7 (but did not ignite in the other two buildings alongside WTC-7). The FEMA report at www.WTC7.net is an interesting read. The report emphasizes the fires on floors 11-13, the Security & Exchange offices. Directly beneath the SEC were two floors of Secret Service offices (also on fire). FEMA deduces: "It is likely that fires started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1." Yet no fires were reported below the seventh floor and NIST reported no debris had struck the roof. To conclude that the fires may have been purposely set--ARSON-- does not appear to dawn on these government detectives. NIST also notes that one of the first fires reported occured---where else---at mayor Giuliani's command post on the 23rd floor, the OEM, Office of Emergency Management. I suspect certain operatives were torching the building--as any GOOD detective or insurance investigater would have concluded.