Truthers' Case: Tommyrot or Substantive? The Final Installment

Truthers' Case: Tommyrot or Substantive? The Final Installment

Chiefly due to deference to a good buddy, I’ve tried to be objective over the whole 9/11 controversy, at least insofar as allegations that the United States government in general and the GWB administration in particular were complicit in that unspeakable disaster was concerned.

Not that I’m a government apparatchik or Bush idolator–I think our governments are out of control and that George W. Bush was the worst thing to happen to America and the Republican Party since Harding–but right is right and truth is truth.

Having spent a good deal of time–too much time–on this issue I can say unequivocably, without fear of contradiction, that I still don’t know the truth.

It would seem, however, that a major weapon in the fight to prove a government conspiracy, “Loose Change,” is a load of hogwash conceived originally as a fictional work and later converted into an alleged documentary for the sole purpose of making some big bucks for its writer and producers.

See “Was 9/11 an Inside Job?” http://bit.ly/dp2Hz

In addition, some Truthers take flights of fantasy to the level of absurdity. They would include charges that the Pentagon wasn’t struck by any aircraft and that Flight 93 never did crash in Shanksville and all of its 31 passengers were fellow conspirators whisked away by the government who consented to live somewhere in seclusion for the rest of their days.

Not bloody likely.

That said, much of the rest of the Truthers’ case is, if not gospel truth then at the minimum worthy of further investigation.

For example:

. Why were there hundreds of red-gray chips of “unignited thermite” discovered in every WTC dust sample? That’s a question raised by a highly reputable and professional group, WorldArchitecturalNews.com, http://tiny.cc/iiwzz . . .

(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1900)

Building 7 and the Truthers' Case

Building 7 and the Truthers' Case

Today, the Truther side. The Truthers: In essence, based on video evidence and the vertical, symmetrical fall, “Building 7’s collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled [precision] demolition” and could not possibly have resulted from debris damage from the North or South towers nor from burning diesel fuel.

Furthermore, ”fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure” in the hundred-year history of such structures: http://tiny.cc/glwtz. (See that website for specific details of those findings.)

The Truthers also have an eyewitness on their side, that is they had an eyewitness, one Barry Jennings, an emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority. Jennings had entered Building 7 after the first tower was hit but while both towers were still standing.

He later said the building was crammed with NYPD officers and that he definitely heard explosions before he was ordered out. Jennings escaped with his life but died a mysterious death in 2008 at age 53.

As one Truther-friendly website explained, incorporating Jennings as a victim in the conspiracy, ”In every major cover up from the JFK assassination to Iran Contra, we can see one common thread. The untimely death of eyewitnesses. Barry Jennings was not only an important and most credible eyewitness, but he openly refuted much of the government, and media version of events. He was a liability:” http://tiny.cc/vkixx

Another notable Truther . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1898)

Of Birthers and Truthers, Part Two

Of Birthers and Truthers, Part Two

. . . Now that the ninth anniversary of what is easily the most godawful day in American history, September 11th, 2001, has passed without the threatened Qur’an burnings in Florida–thanks to the persuasive words and strong arms of the FBI–we can sit back and await the momentous tenth anniversary which may see a mosque overshadowing Ground Zero.

One group of people won’t be sitting back, however. The 9/11 Truthers, aka 9/11 Skeptics, aka Truth Activists, rarely sit back.

They believe in their gut that the United States government and/or President George W. Bush somehow, in some way, planned/caused/executed/allowed/consented to (choose one or more of the foregoing) the hijacking of four American airliners and flying them into the World Trade Center towers, into the Pentagon, and into the ground at Shanksville, PA.

On face value, the Truthers’ case would have to be considered the most preposterous of all conspiracy theories, the most outrageous accusations against its government by its people, a reflection of a bitterness and cynicism so complete and sinister that they could conceive of their leadership murdering 3,000 innocents to accomplish their own Machiavellian ends.

I don’t buy it but I have to admit these Truthers raise troubling and still unanswered questions about 9/11.

I started out with ingrained opinions on the Truthers but, as with the Birthers, I try to be as objective as possible, one reason being that I promised a good friend, a closet Truther, that I would strive for objectivity. . .
(Read more about Truthers at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1895)

Of Birthers and Truthers, Part One

Of Birthers and Truthers, Part One

So much has been written and said about so-called “Birthers,” those people who question Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen,” and so-called “Truthers,” those who question the official account of the events on September 11th, 2001, that it’s nearly impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The wheat, that is, the truth, is there, somewhere buried deep beneath all the chaff, the baloney and propaganda, but unearthing that truth is no simple matter for someone who has never subscribed to either the Birther or Truther alleged conspiracies.

Let’s immediately dispel the most common slander employed against the Birthers namely that they’re racists who cooked up the whole Obama birth controversy out of their antagonism toward the first black president in America’s history.

There is no substantive proof of a racist motivation on the part of Birthers. That charge of racism has been used from the beginning of Obama’s candidacy to dismiss virtually all who speak ill of the man, his beliefs, or his policies.

It’s an excellent, if underhanded, ploy when you think about it, deftly tossing the racist card into the campaign mix whenever someone criticized Obama. Rarely tossed overtly, it was more often implicit and probably garnered a few million white votes cast by those who wanted desparately to assure themselves and others that they weren’t racists.

It’s also more than curious that the MSM fell all over itself dismissing and ridiculing Birthers with no real effort to investigate their contentions and standpoint, much like they did with interrelated rumors that Obama was really a Muslim and as they subsequently did with regard to the Tea Party Movement.

That failure alone is reason enough to give at least some credence to the Birthers.

(Incidentally, there’s no substantive proof, either, that Birthers are a disturbed product of a resurrection of Hillary Clinton’s “vast, right wing conspiracy.”)

As a non-Birther, I figured going directly to the source was the best bet toward determining just how valid a case the Birthers made for their view that Barack Hussein Obama was a poseur not constitutionally-entitled to the presidency no matter how many votes he received . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1894)