British Fascists and 9/11 Untruths...

[Alex_V]

Here's an interesting article which describes the undeniable links between 9/11 conspiracy theories and anti-semitism and far-right groups, with particular scrutiny of the UK 'scene'...

http://edmundstanding.blogspot.com/2008 ... ruths.html

The reason '9/11 Truth' attracts anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, and other assorted sociopaths is precisely because the paranoid, conspiracy-based worldview it is based around is a sanitised version of the same conspiracy theory they believe in. The reason that Alex Jones attracts neo-Nazis is that they listen to his drivel about a 'global elite' and nod and wink to each other, assuming he really means 'the Jews'. Why would they assume this? Because the 'global elite' trope is directly lifted from the 'World Jewish Conspiracy' ideas they promote. And why do 'truthers' who start out claiming to oppose a 'Zionist conspiracy' sometimes slip over into full-blown anti-Semitism? Because the 'World Zionist Conspiracy' material is basically the same old 'World Jewish Conspiracy' material, with a few modern tweaks and additions, such as claims about 9/11, and the word 'Jew' replaced with 'Zionist'.

That Britain's Fascists should embrace 9/11 conspiracy theories seems entirely consistent with their inability to grasp reality. That the 'truthers' can't see why anti-Semitic lunatics are attracted to their 'movement' suggests they are as out of touch with reality as their Nazi supporters.

[ian neal]

'Interesting?'

A load of old bollox more like.

It is undeniable that some Chelsea fans have connections to the far-right.

Does that mean all Chelsea fans are fascists?

No

Next

[Alex_V]

It is undeniable that some Chelsea fans have connections to the far-right.

Does that mean all Chelsea fans are fascists?

No

Unfortunately your response has almost no connection with the point that Standing is making. Standing is not saying that all 9/11 conspiracy theorists are fascists.

[Stefan]

It's kind of an artical which raises the comment: And your point is?

If 9/11 was an attack which involved US connivance then bad people as well as good people will be able to follow the same evidence to the same conclusion. So what?

What exactly is this supposed to reveal which is worthy of our attention?

Funny to see the way Edmund has gone. I thought he was an OK bloke when he used to come to truth meetings, if a little pre-occupied with the "NWO/Illuminati" side of things and extreme in some of his views.

Seems he was extreme as a truther and now extreme as a debunker.

Shame...

[Alex_V]

It's kind of an artical which raises the comment: And your point is?

If 9/11 was an attack which involved US connivance then bad people as well as good people will be able to follow the same evidence to the same conclusion. So what?

What exactly is this supposed to reveal which is worthy of our attention?

Funny to see the way Edmund has gone. I thought he was an OK bloke when he used to come to truth meetings, if a little pre-occupied with the "NWO/Illuminati" side of things and extreme in some of his views.

Seems he was extreme as a truther and now extreme as a debunker.

Shame...

I suppose the article may be old news to those in the thick of the truth movement. Nevertheless, I would think it would be essential reading to those 'floating voters' on the conspiracy theories who might be wondering what sort of circles they would be moving in by taking up the cause.

On both sides of the argument there is actually misunderstanding of this issue. A certain breed of debunkers consider themselves in opposition to a branch of the loony left, where in fact the truth movement has its roots in the extremes of both left and right. A point worth making I think.

As many have pointed out before, this forum, with its left-leaning approach and zero-tolerance policy for certain branches of 'truther', is hardly the place to assess reality on this issue. But presumably as a truther you may find yourself protesting on the streets shoulder to shoulder with holocaust deniers and far-right organisations. Personally that would bother me.

[Stefan]

Hi Alex, first off sorry I never found the time for that email debate, now on to your points -

It would bother me as well, if that was the case. It isn't.

Having been on the circles of the truth movement (in London anyway) for several years now I can say that the percentage of people I have met who I considered to be anti-Semitic in any way... well you would need a zero after a dot if you were to put a percentage on it. I'm talking about two people from the hundreds I have met.

I hope that this is representative of society, although the evidence would suggest that anti-Semitism in society is a genuine problem to be tackled and the truth movement is in fact thankfully under-subscribed.

I'd also say that due to personality types the members of the truth movement who are actually active campaigners are far left leaning for the overwhelming majority.

But disbelief in the official story of 9/11 is a position unrelated to political stance, since it is based on judgement of information and evidence - there are far left, far right and everything inbetween people who have come to the conclusion that the official story is correct, just as there is a smattering of both who have considered it false.

The guilt by association tactics Edmund is stooping to are meaningless - you might as well track down a truther who had a criminal record and conclude that if you were going to get involved in the truth movement you'd be "rubbing shoulders" with criminals...

[Dogsmilk]

It's kind of an artical which raises the comment: And your point is?

If 9/11 was an attack which involved US connivance then bad people as well as good people will be able to follow the same evidence to the same conclusion. So what?

What exactly is this supposed to reveal which is worthy of our attention?

Funny to see the way Edmund has gone. I thought he was an OK bloke when he used to come to truth meetings, if a little pre-occupied with the "NWO/Illuminati" side of things and extreme in some of his views.

Seems he was extreme as a truther and now extreme as a debunker.

Shame...

I suppose the article may be old news to those in the thick of the truth movement. Nevertheless, I would think it would be essential reading to those 'floating voters' on the conspiracy theories who might be wondering what sort of circles they would be moving in by taking up the cause.

On both sides of the argument there is actually misunderstanding of this issue. A certain breed of debunkers consider themselves in opposition to a branch of the loony left, where in fact the truth movement has its roots in the extremes of both left and right. A point worth making I think.

As many have pointed out before, this forum, with its left-leaning approach and zero-tolerance policy for certain branches of 'truther', is hardly the place to assess reality on this issue. But presumably as a truther you may find yourself protesting on the streets shoulder to shoulder with holocaust deniers and far-right organisations. Personally that would bother me.

If you campaign on animal rights or environmental issues you may find yourselves rubbing shoulders with them too as they have also had a presence in those movements. Many far right types opposed the Iraq war - would you not attend an anti-war protest just in case a BNP member or Holocaust denier was standing next to you?

The core ideas of trutherism do not necessarily entail any specific ideology, so it's inevitable that a range of political viewpoints will be attracted. What interests me is the way that these sorts of articles tend to totally ignore the fact that far right/Holocaust denial ideas in the TM do not go unchallenged.

These people bug the hell out of me, but in perspective they tend to be a highly vocal but small minority.

I may be wrong, but I sometimes think I detect a trace of glee in the debunking community when they have some far right/Holocaust denial associated truthers to get righteously indignant about.

[Rowan Berkeley]

In the first place, the growth of the white racist, or white supremacist, hard right in Europe and the UK is prompted by anti-Muslim, not anti-Jewish, feeling, and is to some extent encouraged and supported by a certain stratum of Jewry for this reason. In Belgium, for instance, the alliance is quite explicit.

In the second place, the term 'holocaust denial' is an ignorant and slanted one. It assumes that we already know what the word 'holocaust' refers to, in sufficient detail to be able to either affirm or deny it, which is not the case. Forensic studies of the physical extermination machinery in the camps is categorically FORBIDDEN. Even responses to such studies are discouraged : Pressac's much vaunted Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers is the only full scale attempted forensic response, and it is not terribly convincing, offering no literal evidence of homicidal gas chambers whatsoever:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... operation/

[Dogsmilk]

In the first place, the growth of the white racist, or white supremacist, hard right in Europe and the UK is prompted by anti-Muslim, not anti-Jewish, feeling, and is to some extent encouraged and supported by a certain stratum of Jewry for this reason. In Belgium, for instance, the alliance is quite explicit.

In the second place, the term 'holocaust denial' is an ignorant and slanted one. It assumes that we already know what the word 'holocaust' refers to, in sufficient detail to be able to either affirm or deny it, which is not the case. Forensic studies of the physical extermination machinery in the camps is categorically FORBIDDEN. Even responses to such studies are discouraged : Pressac's much vaunted Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers is the only full scale attempted forensic response, and it is not terribly convincing, offering no literal evidence of homicidal gas chambers whatsoever:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... operation/

That's not actually true - a number of investigations were undertaken immediately after the war, though obviously not up to contemporary standards. The major stumbling block today is the antipathy towards mucking about with the dead, as was seen when Kola generated ire by simply mapping the graves at Belzec. On one hand this can be frustrating and inevitably leads deniers to concoct conspiracy theories, on the other given that 99.9% of people feel that the available evidence of genocide is basically sufficient, there is the question of why people should be performing investigations that won't aid history much (if at all) to placate a tiny minority of disgruntled cranks. Nevertheless, negotiations are currently in progress as the whether the mass graves at Sobibor can be subjected to archaeological excavation next year. This will be irrelevant to deniers. In the same way the Polish zyklob B tests in the 90s simply lead to further endless debate, whatever bodies (body parts) are unearthed at Sobibor if the go-ahead is given will inevitably lead to accusations of bodies being planted, the Soviets did it, there aren't enough bodies and they won't be happy until every ounce of humain remains are piled into a big heap etc. Though even the surface presence of numerous bone fragments is interesting in itself. When Patrick Debois mapped shooting action graves but only physically excavated one of them, this has led to cries of 'foul' by deniers as if it's natural to expect every single one of them to be fully unearthed.

I have witnessed some extraordinary debate whereby deniers demand that Holocaust sites should be treated like 'crime scenes' and subjected to police style forensic investigations. This is a bit like expecting time team to have the old bill and people in those space suit things present when they excavate some battlefield site.

Deniers will never be happy and will always seek to rationalise away any evidence while singularly failing to produce their own comprehensive narrative which takes into account all of the available evidence.

[Dogsmilk]

Ooh look - for some reason I'm suddenly a "critic" For no apparent reason!!!!!!

Der Fuhrer has spoken!

Let us all bow before the one who needs to label people to make him feel all wise and important!

He knows us better than ourselves! He is in charge an don't forget it! Any empire gives the warm glow of power exerted, no matter how small!

Wow, I wish I had a forum I could attach labels to people on to make me feel like a big man!

[Stefan]

WHY is dogsmilk now a critic?

[chek]

Oh dear.

Dogsmilk is now a "truth critic", is he?
That doesn't quite match my recollection of any of his posts here.

I hope it's not connected in any way to some inverse reclamation of Nick "swimming pools of Auschwitz" Kollerstrom, who even were he to win at some future point in time a Nobel Peace Prize for Something Really Like Wow, will always be Nick "swimming pools of Auschwitz" Kollertstrom.

911/ Belgrano/ 7/7 research/ whatever notwithstanding, just like John Lear he's now toxic by association, and by his own hand too.

It's tough, but that's how reputation (and association) works, whatever your views on the fairness (or lack of) may be.

[Dogsmilk]

I hope it's not connected in any way to some inverse reclamation of Nick "swimming pools of Auschwitz" Kollerstrom

That thought had occurred to me, but I dismissed it as being too ridiculous to countenance. No-one is that childish.

You tend not to get explanations for the whims of the forum ID card system - it is simply divine mandate - and it has never been employed with any semblance of rationality beyond who Tony has randomly decided is his chum and who isn't, so who knows?

[Stefan]

No-one is that childish.

The evidence, just below your name there, suggests otherwise...

[paul wright]

I'd agree that the legend under dogsmilk's name at present is unnecessary
But having met the man himself in his transition from waverer to truther, I personally would regard him as validated. He's there, he's articulate and he's cool. I know where he lives
I know he's a bit monomaniac on the 'antisemite' track, but that's his choice and he provides a balance to the views of others
I've seen him engage in some quite intransigient dialogue both here and in other forums
I don't think that constitutes a 'critic' status

[Rowan Berkeley]

the only actual mention of swimming pools in Kollerstrom's offending article, The Auschwitz 'Gas Chamber' Illusion, is this:

The historic remains from the camp are such things as shower-unit huts, a swimming pool and a morgue.

[Dogsmilk]

the only actual mention of swimming pools in Kollerstrom's offending article, The Auschwitz 'Gas Chamber' Illusion, is this:

The historic remains from the camp are such things as shower-unit huts, a swimming pool and a morgue.

Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water-polo matches

-School Trips to Auschwitz by Nick Kollerstrom

This was widely cited when there was the big controversy, though Kollerstrom's name has been removed from the piece on CODOH and he has attempted "historical revisionism" regarding his authorship.
See here.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewto ... 5&start=60



Cheers, Paul.

[Dogsmilk]

No-one is that childish.

The evidence, just below your name there, suggests otherwise...

But that would suggest that challenging Holocaust denial is a sufficient condition to qualify as a "911 truth critic" in Tony's view. Which would be truly extraordinary.

[Alex_V]

I have to say that the way this thread has unfolded kind of makes Standing's point for him. To swallow a 9/11 conspiracy theory most seem to believe that the media are controlled, and history is some sort of NWO whitewash - naturally if you start applying that theory to events of the past, you get revisionism of other key events. The holocaust being a popular one.

From the outside looking in, it does come across as hypocritical to blindly trust one set of theories on 9/11 but instantly dismiss any theories on certain other topics. It does feel like it's more about politics than actual conviction - presumably many truthers know that once the holocaust enters the discussion any chance of mainstream support goes out of the window.

But my opinion is that many truthers privately acknowledge that the holocaust is as fair game as any other subject. After all, it seems like virtually every other event in history is open to some sort of radical re-evaluation. Am I really to believe that in my reading of 20th century history I am one of the 'sheeple' swallowing the nonsense my government has fed me over the years on all matters, EXCEPT for the holocaust where everyone was honest and above board in all things. I don't buy it.

[Dogsmilk]

To swallow a 9/11 conspiracy theory most seem to believe that the media are controlled, and history is some sort of NWO whitewash - naturally if you start applying that theory to events of the past, you get revisionism of other key events. The holocaust being a popular one.

Even if you believe the media is controlled, it does not follow that all historical events have to be radically revised. Chomsky - deffo no truther - thinks the media are controlled (albeit in a subtler systemic way) and some parts of history have been whitewashed, but has no problem with a bunch of major historical events. The media do not write history and certainly are not responsible for compiling what we know about the Holocaust.

From the outside looking in, it does come across as hypocritical to blindly trust one set of theories on 9/11 but instantly dismiss any theories on certain other topics. It does feel like it's more about politics than actual conviction - presumably many truthers know that once the holocaust enters the discussion any chance of mainstream support goes out of the window.

You seem to be saying it's 'all or nothing'. There is nothing inconsistent with being a truther but not believing every every other theory going. You may as well say all truthers should think the moon landings were faked or we are ruled by reptilians. The blunt fact is they don't.

But my opinion is that many truthers privately acknowledge that the holocaust is as fair game as any other subject.

And what leads you to believe that? Do you have evidence?
Isn't it just as likely many people can't be bothered arguing about it or just don't know much about it and aren't that interested. I mean, I don't think the moon landings were faked, at least I don't find the notion plausible, but I don't get into debates about it because I've never really studied the subject and I'm really not that interested.

After all, it seems like virtually every other event in history is open to some sort of radical re-evaluation. Am I really to believe that in my reading of 20th century history I am one of the 'sheeple' swallowing the nonsense my government has fed me over the years on all matters, EXCEPT for the holocaust where everyone was honest and above board in all things. I don't buy it.

The Holocaust narrative has nothing to do with the government. It has as much to do with the government as your (I assume!) belief the Normans invaded in 1066 does.

[Alex_V]

Even if you believe the media is controlled, it does not follow that all historical events have to be radically revised. Chomsky - deffo no truther - thinks the media are controlled (albeit in a subtler systemic way) and some parts of history have been whitewashed, but has no problem with a bunch of major historical events. The media do not write history and certainly are not responsible for compiling what we know about the Holocaust.

I agree with most of that. I'm certainly not saying all truthers by definition have to be holocaust deniers. But I am saying that there is an indelible link between the sort of extreme distrust of mainstream history that goes with many 9/11 conspiracy theories, and other radical views of historical events.

The Holocaust narrative has nothing to do with the government. It has as much to do with the government as your (I assume!) belief the Normans invaded in 1066 does.

There is a link between holocaust denial and theories about a 'zionist' hand operating behind the scenes among western gvmts, all linked very much to (some) 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I'm surprised that this point is even a debate. Pick out a group of random 9/11 conspiracy sites from the net, and a fair proportion of them will point the finger at a 'zionist' NWO or similar.

Just today I noticed the writer of the New York Activist blog said on truthaction.org that one of their main focuses these days was "Opposing religious right wing and other extreme right wing ideologies within the 9/11 Truth movement", so it's not just critics who are concerned about this issue.

[Rowan Berkeley]

So, in other words, all radical scepticism regarding major political affairs is dangerous, because it can lead into forbidden areas.

Your conclusion being what, universal lobotomy?

[Dogsmilk]

Even if you believe the media is controlled, it does not follow that all historical events have to be radically revised. Chomsky - deffo no truther - thinks the media are controlled (albeit in a subtler systemic way) and some parts of history have been whitewashed, but has no problem with a bunch of major historical events. The media do not write history and certainly are not responsible for compiling what we know about the Holocaust.

I agree with most of that. I'm certainly not saying all truthers by definition have to be holocaust deniers. But I am saying that there is an indelible link between the sort of extreme distrust of mainstream history that goes with many 9/11 conspiracy theories, and other radical views of historical events.

The Holocaust narrative has nothing to do with the government. It has as much to do with the government as your (I assume!) belief the Normans invaded in 1066 does.

There is a link between holocaust denial and theories about a 'zionist' hand operating behind the scenes among western gvmts, all linked very much to (some) 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I'm surprised that this point is even a debate. Pick out a group of random 9/11 conspiracy sites from the net, and a fair proportion of them will point the finger at a 'zionist' NWO or similar.

Just today I noticed the writer of the New York Activist blog said on truthaction.org that one of their main focuses these days was "Opposing religious right wing and other extreme right wing ideologies within the 9/11 Truth movement", so it's not just critics who are concerned about this issue.

Sure, but not all proponents of Zionist theories are Holocaust deniers. some even blame the Zionists for the Holocaust. If you look at stuff on the right, you'll find people alleging truthers are far left.
I think the truth movement is frequently too right wing for my liking (and I'm quite obviously fiercely opposed to the Holocaust denial contingent), but that's probably because many people would view me as a 'left wing extremist'. I think these attempts to say "truthers are like this, truthers are like that" fail to understand the complexity of competing narratives. People accuse 'conspiracy theorists' of reducing the world to sweeping, simplistic Manichean dichotomies, but nevertheless themselves frequently try to make the truth movement fit into boxes that fits their ideological spectacles as representing whatever politics they don't like. Which is easy, as all kinds of politics exist within the truth movement.

[Alex_V]

So, in other words, all radical scepticism regarding major political affairs is dangerous, because it can lead into forbidden areas.

Your conclusion being what, universal lobotomy?

I didn't say it was dangerous, or necessarily wrong. So no.

[Alex_V]

Sure, but not all proponents of Zionist theories are Holocaust deniers. some even blame the Zionists for the Holocaust. If you look at stuff on the right, you'll find people alleging truthers are far left.
I think the truth movement is frequently too right wing for my liking (and I'm quite obviously fiercely opposed to the Holocaust denial contingent), but that's probably because many people would view me as a 'left wing extremist'. I think these attempts to say "truthers are like this, truthers are like that" fail to understand the complexity of competing narratives. People accuse 'conspiracy theorists' of reducing the world to sweeping, simplistic Manichean dichotomies, but nevertheless themselves frequently try to make the truth movement fit into boxes that fits their ideological spectacles as representing whatever politics they don't like. Which is easy, as all kinds of politics exist within the truth movement.

I agree it's a broad church, and that sweeping generalisations lack subtlety.

It's a little bit similar to the argument that is often made about pot-smoking leading onto the use of harder drugs. The committed pot-smoker cries foul because they have never touched anything else, which makes the argument seem very one-dimensional, yet the argument may well be statistically true in broad terms.

[Stefan]

I have to say that the way this thread has unfolded kind of makes Standing's point for him. To swallow a 9/11 conspiracy theory most seem to believe that the media are controlled, and history is some sort of NWO whitewash - naturally if you start applying that theory to events of the past, you get revisionism of other key events. The holocaust being a popular one.

I don't think many people suggest literal control of the media - and it is not just 9/11 truth activists who point to the propaganda model - Noam Chomsky and many others have written about how it works.

There is an excellent article on it by Mohsin of We Are Change London here: http://www.wearechange.org.uk/911%20and ... 0Model.pdf

All Edmund is doing is to insinuate guilt by asociation and innuendo "these people believe 9/11 was an inside job and are far-right wing racists and anti-Semites, what does that say about the view that 9/11 was an inside job?".

If it was and inside job it says nothing of course - it would be evident to anyone who looked at the evidence with objectivity - regardless of their politcal view or prejudice. Even if it wasn't and inside job then people of every political persuesion could get it wrong as well as right.

That should be self-evident to anyone with any critical faculties at all, the only reason "critics" have jumped on this as anything but a childish tirade by a bitter ex-truther (and one of the loonier ones I ever met as well) is that they think it attacks a group they were against in the first place... which is an ethically questionable position to take.

From the outside looking in, it does come across as hypocritical to blindly trust one set of theories on 9/11 but instantly dismiss any theories on certain other topics.

Well only if you wish to misrepresent us as accepting anything blindly or dismissing anything instantly. I do neither. I look at the facts and make my mind up based on those facts.

It does feel like it's more about politics than actual conviction - presumably many truthers know that once the holocaust enters the discussion any chance of mainstream support goes out of the window.

No. I simply don't believe the thrust of what Holocaust deniers are saying based on the evidence they present.

Now, are you suggesting that you think they are right? You seem to be suggesting the only reason we are not saying that the holocaust was a hoax is for political convenience - are you that won over by the case they have made, that certain it is accurate, that you cannot believe anyone would have any reason to reject it but for self-interested purposes?

Interesting...

But my opinion is that many truthers privately acknowledge that the holocaust is as fair game as any other subject. After all, it seems like virtually every other event in history is open to some sort of radical re-evaluation. Am I really to believe that in my reading of 20th century history I am one of the 'sheeple' swallowing the nonsense my government has fed me over the years on all matters, EXCEPT for the holocaust where everyone was honest and above board in all things. I don't buy it.

Well what exactly is an opinion worth when it is not supported by any facts. Who do you think is interested in the fruits of your imagination?

Let me make a closing point -

Critics rubbed their hands with glee when Nick Kollerstrom was outed as a holocaust revisionist -

How many holocaust revisionists are there?

Think about it - if NK being a holocaust denier smears 9/11 truth - what does every other holocaust denier who doesn't question 9/11 do to smear you and your brethren?

If you're going to jump into lazy logical ditches, don't expect any help getting out...

[Alex_V]

I don't think many people suggest literal control of the media - and it is not just 9/11 truth activists who point to the propaganda model - Noam Chomsky and many others have written about how it works.

There is an excellent article on it by Mohsin of We Are Change London here: http://www.wearechange.org.uk/911%20and ... 0Model.pdf

Influences exist on and in the media. This phenomenon does not necessarily prove or disprove any conspiracy theory.

Mohsin seems to refer to two specific examples to prove that 9/11 was fraudulently reported...

The first is that the mentions of bombs that happened early in the coverage on the day were later dropped. My response to that is that they were later ignored because it was established that it was airplanes and not bombs that caused the event. Whether or not the media were misled, why shout bombs when by all later accounts there were none. If someone had claimed seeing aliens that morning, should the media still have been repeating that claim to this day? No of course not.

The second claim is that not enough attention was paid to WTC7. My answer to that is that building 7 is essentially an irrelevance to the loss of life and only a by-product of the terrorist attacks - what possible reason would the media have to give mass coverage to that particular building? None whatsoever.

Mohsin's point seems to be that because a 'propaganda model' was once suggested, that it must therefore be in use in regards to their pet conspiracy theory. The media may have been wrong on certain things, but there's no evidence at all that this was deliberate or unnatural in the circumstances.

That is essentially Chomsky's point - he is not apportioning blame or exposing evil, but revealing the subtle nature of the way things work. Truthers have twisted this idea to invent preposterous 'baddies' in the guise of Bond villians who twist our perceptions.

All Edmund is doing is to insinuate guilt by asociation and innuendo "these people believe 9/11 was an inside job and are far-right wing racists and anti-Semites, what does that say about the view that 9/11 was an inside job?".

Maybe. But there is an interesting issue somewhere there that I think is worthy of at least some thought - it seems to have struck a small nerve in this thread at least.

If it was and inside job it says nothing of course - it would be evident to anyone who looked at the evidence with objectivity - regardless of their politcal view or prejudice. Even if it wasn't and inside job then people of every political persuesion could get it wrong as well as right.

IF the only barrier to the success of your movement is public acceptance, then the apparent presence of (what some perceive as) anti-semitic views within it is crippling. And I don't see what you gain either way by burying your head in the sand and pretending this problem doesn't exist.

Are there holocaust revisionists/deniers among the ranks of the truth movement as a whole?
Yes there are.

Do they go to the same public meetings as Dogsmilk and Stefan?
Almost certainly not.

Do 9/11 conspiracy theories and holocaust denial complement each other as beliefs?
I think in certain circumstances they do, depending of course what you believe. Coming from a critic's viewpoint it is impossible not to see certain parallels in the belief systems and logical fallacies employed in both cases.

What does this say about 9/11 truth?
I don't really know. I don't think the political persuasion of its followers makes the case for or against a conspiracy any clearer.

Does it harm the general cause of 9/11 truth?
Yes I think it does, because it makes it harder as a moderate to consider it a serious movement.

[Dogsmilk]

Oh come on Alex, we're going round in circles here.

You say you've struck a nerve, but you may as well say the same thing if you'd declared truthers are somehow inherently linked to paedophiles and a couple of people turned up to challenge you. You're behaving rather like a conspiracy theorist.
Crikey, you should know by now what I'm like when it comes to Holocaust denial.

Are there holocaust revisionists/deniers among the ranks of non truthers as a whole?
Yes there are.

Do they hang round with Alex V?
Almost certainly not.

Do non truther assertions and holocaust denial complement each other as beliefs?
I think in certain circumstances they do, depending of course what you believe. Coming from a critic's viewpoint it is impossible not to see certain parallels in the belief systems and logical fallacies employed in both cases. One tends to see the Jew at work everywhere, vastly inflating their power and influence, reconstructing the past into a wildly implausible conspiracy involving thousands of people that extends through the past 60 years. The other tends to see the Holocaust denier everywhere, vastly inflating the power and influence of a very vocal minority, reconstructing the truth movement into a large network of historically ignorant or outright mendacious cranks.

What does this say about 9/11 debunking?
I don't really know. I don't think the political persuasion of its followers makes the case for or against a conspiracy any clearer.

Does it harm the general cause of 911 debunking?
Yes I think it does, because it makes it harder as a truther to consider it a serious movement.

[KP50]

The first is that the mentions of bombs that happened early in the coverage on the day were later dropped. My response to that is that they were later ignored because it was established that it was airplanes and not bombs that caused the event. Whether or not the media were misled, why shout bombs when by all later accounts there were none. If someone had claimed seeing aliens that morning, should the media still have been repeating that claim to this day? No of course not.

I have voluntarily retired from contributing to this particular forum, but like an aging rock star I can't resist a farewell concert.

Questions for you Alex - Who established there were no bombs? If so, how was this accomplished so quickly, surely it would require intensive forensic work and comprehensive interviewing of surviving eye-witnesses? From memory, the very next day the "official story" took hold and the media refrained from wondering how the hell those massive towers disintegrated and what about all of those people who claimed there were explosions.

On 9/11, you have a reporter stating on live TV that there was a "3rd massive explosion and people are worried that if there is another explosion, this building might not last" (paraphrased, not the exact quote). On 9/12, this seems to have been completely forgotten, as if it never happened.

Or do you believe that the role of the media is to report only what official sources tell them? Is that your view of an independent media?

[Alex_V]

Who established there were no bombs? If so, how was this accomplished so quickly, surely it would require intensive forensic work and comprehensive interviewing of surviving eye-witnesses? From memory, the very next day the "official story" took hold and the media refrained from wondering how the hell those massive towers disintegrated and what about all of those people who claimed there were explosions.

On 9/11, you have a reporter stating on live TV that there was a "3rd massive explosion and people are worried that if there is another explosion, this building might not last" (paraphrased, not the exact quote). On 9/12, this seems to have been completely forgotten, as if it never happened.

Or do you believe that the role of the media is to report only what official sources tell them? Is that your view of an independent media?

It's a bit complicated. I can only offer my own internal logic.

It is impossible to categorically 'establish that there were no bombs'.

I also can't comment on exactly what information was being received by the media on or after the day, and from what sources. You can't really judge whether the media were misleading or being misled without knowing the facts in terms of the information they were being provided with.

Can I come up with a reasonable version of events where the media were within their rights to drop any talk of bombs? Yes I can. Perhaps official sources say there were no bombs. Perhaps firemen say there are no bombs. I can understand how perhaps the media could be wary of the implications of announcing that there were bombs without official confirmation - they decide to wait for the investigation and aftermath, at which point it is confirmed to them that there is no evidence of bombs being present. So they report no bombs. I'm not saying that this is exactly what happened, but it's a reasonable enough theory to explain the media's response.

Should the media have pursued this idea of bombs? Maybe they did, and there was nothing in it - no story. Maybe they made a judgement call that it was a red herring - perhaps wrongly. Maybe you feel that they let down the public by ignoring the issue. Maybe they rely too much on official sources. Any or all of these things may be true, but this is not direct evidence either of a conspiracy or a complicit media.

Whether or not there were bombs is actually irrelevant to this point. The media's reaction IN ITSELF is not evidence of deceit or propaganda in the media. It's a logical fallacy to claim that.