Truther Research

John Wright, LeftWright from 911 Blogger, appeared on a morning show in Oklahoma this morning. Mostly pretty boring, although it was rather humorous to hear the hosts make fun of his rambling speech, but one quote from Mr. Wright left me falling off of the couch. From 1:26 in:

A week later after 9/11 I saw a Time magazine and here is a picture of the Pentagon and the lawn looks like a putting green and I am going 'wow that's kind of interesting'. But once again I was kind of busy with my daughters so I didn't pay too much attention even though in the 80s, I had studied Iran-Contra, and almost read a book about Iran-Contra because that is my area of specialty in international relations. I looked at the Pentagon and I said 'huh this is kind of weird'.

Pretty much sums up truther research there.

How Do I Critique a Book Based on the Title?

Jon Gold wonders why I'm ignoring the above book. To answer:

1. It just came out two weeks ago.
2. I haven't read it.
3. I haven't read any substantive reviews of it.
4. I'm not going to buy it.
5. The local public library doesn't have it on order.

Now, Jon Gold himself doesn't let a mere thing like not having read the book hold him back from reviewing it:

Kevin Fenton has been a contributor for years [...], and the "Complete 9/11 Timeline." He has provided countless pieces of helpful information for anyone concerned about the "official account" of 9/11. I highly recommend this book.

So Gold's review boils down to, "I like Kevin Fenton and therefore his book must be good." Like I said, I haven't read any substantive reviews.

Update: Gold claims to have read the book; you'd never know it from that ridiculous "review".

BTW, that's Jon Gold's second review on Amazon. His first? Back in 2006 for a Grifter book:

Years From Now Dr. David Ray Griffin will be mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, and Ghandi(sic).

Hey, I mention them in the same breath all the time. David Ray Griffin is a moron who led a bunch of other morons off an intellectual cliff, unlike Dr Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

The publisher does provide some information:

Questioning actions taken by American intelligence agencies prior to 9/11, this investigation charges that intelligence officials repeatedly and deliberately withheld information from the FBI, thereby allowing hijackers to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Pinpointing individuals associated with Alec Station, the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, as primarily responsible for many of the intelligence failures, this account analyzes the circumstances in which critical intelligence information was kept from FBI investigators in the wider context of the CIA’s operations against al-Qaeda, concluding that the information was intentionally omitted in order to allow an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States. The book also looks at the findings of the four main 9/11 investigations, claiming they omitted key facts and were blind to the purposefulness of the wrongdoing they investigated. Additionally, it asserts that Alec Station’s chief was involved in key post-9/11 events and further intelligence failures, including the failure to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora and the CIA's rendition and torture program.

Bolding added for emphasis.

So it's a LIHOP book. We don't talk about LIHOP much around here, but it seems to me that's even less tenable than MIHOP. Why? Because at least with MIHOP, the plotters can choose whom they let in on the conspiracy. With LIHOP, the people who have found out through their work about the terrorist attacks all have to be trusted without any prior selection by the elements who allow the attacks to happen.

I Blame the Government

Something very odd is going on over at 9-11 Flogger. The posts are moving backwards in time. This morning when I checked the latest posts were from 2009; currently the top two posts are from 2008 and there are a few from as early as 2006 on the first page. Such discredited figures as Judy Wood, Kevin Barrett and Ace Baker are all restored to their former status as people worth a listen.

There Is No Santa Claus

A year or so ago my nephew asked his mother if there was a Santa Claus. As the youngster was approaching the age where it is inappropriate to maintain the magic, she broached the subject carefully. Did it really matter to him if there was no Santa Claus? She got a very heated, "Yes it does matter!" in response, and decided that perhaps it was not yet time to let him know the truth.

David Aaronovitch can sympathize:

The author and 9/11 conspiracist, Ian Henshall, announced his departure from the big truther's bash on Monday evening, by thrusting his bald head into my face, twice calling me a "f---g scumbag" and then flapping off into the wet night. It was a typically careless exit.

We had both been part of an audience at the Royal Institute of British Architects for Richard Gage, who is the American front-man for "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth".

Moron Henshall:

Henshall's book, restating much of this, came to the attention of Mr Martin Webster. In 2009, Webster wrote to Henshall expressing his interest. Henshall, knowing what younger readers may not - that Martin Webster is an unrepentant and briefly famous neo-Nazi - explained why he was not keen to foster that interest. "The main attack on the 911 Truth movement is that we are 'holocaust deniers' ie antisemitic," wrote Henshall, "and it is amazing to note the key media people who have attacked us are Johann Hari, Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, George Monbiot, Mathew Rothschild."

He went on: "Although I am always keen to sell my book I think it would be bad tactics to be linked to your networks, because it would give these people more ammunition."

No surprise, Henshall doesn't want to be linked to a neo-Nazi, not because he finds the man odious, but because it would be used against him.

BTW, Gage's appearance at the Royal Institute of British Architects backfired a bit with a terrific article appearing in a UK buildings magazine:

But critics claim his scholarly approach is nothing more than a cover for a “bonkers” conspiracy theory which ultimately points the finger at the US government and allies including the state of Israel.

Director of the American Institute of Architects’ New York chapter Rick Bell, who witnessed 9/11, expressed surprise at the event and said “no amount of money” would persuade him to allow the group to talk at his headquarters.

“The professional community discredits this guy,” he said. “We rent to just about anybody but if this guy came to me I’d say we don’t want your money, we don’t want you in our building.

“You have to draw the line somewhere… Not for any amount of money would we have that talk in our space. It gives it a credibility that it doesn’t deserve.”

KPF chairman Gene Kohn, who was the AIA’s spokesman in the aftermath of the attacks, called Gage’s theories “ridiculous”.

Hat Tip on the Aaronovitch article: Angrysoba in the comments.

Alex Jones Explains It All

He clearly gets one thing right (around 3:50):

"The point is it just gets crazier by the minute."

Hell No I Ain't Reading No White Paper!

Most of this interview that Richard Gage does for Skeptical Inquirer magazine isn't that interesting, and good deal is completely unintelligible, but I found the bit in the middle about whether he had read Ryan Mackey's comprehensive White Paper interesting. From 4:50 into the second video:

Have you read [Ryan Mackey's] white paper?

Gage: No, but others have. And I understand it is full of nonsense and manipulation that has been exposed very well by Jim Hoffman at the website 911research.com. He has answered all of those assertions. Jim Hoffman's response has not been responded to by Ryan Mackey. I don't have the time to look into every critique of ours, particularly when others have responded to that.

Well yeah, he has to fly to England to speak with Holocaust deniers and anti-vaccine nuts. No time for research!

Truther Legal Strategery

I know picking on the silly things that Truthers say on their forums and blogs isn't really fair, but this one was just too funny, and sort of of ties into the recent April Gallop legal debacle. On 911 Flogger Kevin Ryan posts another one of his "A Beautiful Mind: the Home Game" essays in which he posts a bunch of snippets on nanothermite research and then concludes that this magical substance must have blown up the World Trade Centers. That isn't really the funny part though, it really gets amusing, as usual, in the comments, where one genius decides that they should file a lawsuit against the Port Authority.

One “back door” means of investigating with subpoena powers, the origins of the nano-thermitic incendiary material discovered in the World Trade Center (WTC) dust [1], would be a class action civil damages lawsuit comprised of willing 9/11 victim family members and survivors, based on the apparently unlawful presence of these hazardous nano-thermitic incendiaries within the WTC towers immediately prior to September 11, 2001. Such a complaint could proceed under the position of attributing culpable negligence to the Port Authority of NY/NJ and construction contractors assigned by them, for being the likely reason these materials became present within the buildings. Such a civil complaint could reasonably allege, that these nano-thermitic incendiaries: 1). contributed to the fires already present in both buildings and or; 2). somehow contributed to the possibly related and well documented accelerated corrosion [2] (and thus weakening) of WTC structural steel noted by official studies and contributed to the building collapses and loss of life that ensued.

Of course their current argument is that nanothermite was used as an explosive, not an incendiary, but nevermind that ubiquitous inconsistency in the name of the truth, another commenter gives his two hilarious cents:

Great idea! Civil court...hazardous nano-thermitic material

Part of the beauty of this idea: It assumes the presence of nano-thermitic material in the buildings. It would be difficult for the defendents [sic] to prove it was not present.

Uhh, yeah, because judges normally just let you "assume" your key evidence! I am reminded of the old economist joke, "Assume a can opener".

Uncle Fetzer: I Am Not a Holocaust Denier

But he is. Fetzer on a forum:

As for your question about popular conspiracy theories, I didn't think you were being serious. But now that I grasp your advanced state of mental deterioration, let me say, for the record, that I do not believe there are lizard people among us (though you may be the exception), I believe Elvis is dead, I am not a Holocaust denier (even though I'm inclined to believe the numbers killed have been exaggerated)...

Bolding added for emphasis. Of course, denying the numbers killed is a central element to Holocaust Denial.

As a reminder, Fetzer himself noted Holocaust Denial's similarity to 9-11 Truth at the Chandler conference back in 2007:



Hat Tip: Lenbrazil at JREF.

Huffington Post Covers Truther Comic

Responsibly; in the video that accompanies the article, the correspondent compares the Truthers to Deathers and Birthers.

As usual, the real hilarity is in the comments section.

Contempt of Court

April Gallop continues the appeal of her ridiculous and ill-thought court case, even by truther standards, by accusing not just the judges on the panel, but all of the judges in the Circuit, of bias.

2. The Bias Of The Panel Members, Which May Well Be Shared By Other Members of the Court, Is Based In Deep and Fervid Emotions Arising From The 9/11 Attack And Its Aftermath.
10. Beyond the particulars of the decision, and before them—in the sense that it arose reflexively, immediately upon the judges learning what the case was about—plaintiffs consider that the prejudice against them is born of the overwhelming traumatic emotional experience of the attack and its aftermath, shared by so many who were here in New York to live through it together, and adjust to a new life and a new consciousness afterwards. Each one had to do what he or she could to heal from the shock; everyone was beset with fear and rage and lust for vengeance, mutually, collectively, along with all the other feelings people in the city experienced so intensely, and have continued to deal with in the years since. The angry, peremptory tenor of the Panel‘s decision, like that of the district court, leaves little doubt of these emotions‘ pervasive nature. It reads as the same anger and vengefulness that has been the hallmark of these feelings, throughout.

As one wit on JREF described it, "suicide by judge". Another hat tip to LashL, the Goddess of Legaltainment.

Why is Richard Gage Appearing at the Royal Institute of British Architects?

If you ask Box Boy himself, I'm sure he'll natter something like because he has assembled explosive evidence that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition. If you ask Gage's lackey and boot-spittle LeftWright, it's to make up for his appearing alongside Holocaust Deniers, Anti-Vaxxers and other crackpots at other venues along the way. If you ask the Royal Institute itself, it's because he paid them:

A spokeswoman for the RIBA said: “This event is a private hire of one room within the RIBA building, and is not affiliated with the Institute; the RIBA does not endorse, sponsor or publicise private events.”

But if you ask me, it's pretty simple: Because it impresses the rubes and they send in more money.

A Comic Book Excuse

Over at Flogger, the guy who's producing the 9-11 Troof comic book comes up with a novel (and hilarious) excuse for Richard Gage's latest tour, in which he's sharing a stage with Anti-Vaxxers, Holocaust Deniers, and other kooks:

When someone is insulting Richard Gage, they are also insulting the work of over 40 volunteers that discuss all of these events on a regular basis; working hard to make them happen.

The flip side of not having Richard go to events that some think are not worth it: Damage Control.

I know people who are disappointed with Richard aren't going to be going to these events to make sure 9/11 is portrayed reasonably and responsibly.

Would it be better to let the Judy Woods of 9/11 take the stage?

BTW, the comments over there also have some interesting things to say about pot:

I've heard that a big reason for the crackdown on Marijuana in the 60s was that the young people using it were able with enhanced perception to see through the war propaganda and were protesting rather than enlisting.

And:

I hope to stay on topic, I just don't understand why Garerth would, of all things, include only pot-smoking as the correlation to a lack of critical thinking.

Are They Trying to Lose This Case?

When we last covered the issue of April Gallop's lawsuit against Cheney et al, SPC Gallop was getting her case thrown out of the appeals court, along with a request to explain why she should not have to pay $15,000 for a frivolous lawsuit. Now it appears though, rather than doing so, she is doubling down by demanding that the court hear the appeal to her appeal.

Now I, of course, am not one to believe in conspiracy theories, but having read this latest filing, provided here courtesy of LashL, the Goddess of Legaltainment (TM), I find myself asking, "Are they trying to lose this case?" The filing is bad. Idiotically bad. Mind-numbingly bad. I am not a truther, but even I could put together a better legal argument against Dick Cheney than this. I would be willing to bet that any half competent code monkey could write a PERL script to jumble together random sentences from Truther websites that would make more sense than this awful dreck.

For example, this one sentence.

The Panel also ignored the complex web of concrete information in the Complaint relating to the alleged route of the plane, including the wholly improbable 8000-foot spiral dive it took, bypassing the major targets presented by the top of the building, and the West face where Rumsfeld &Co. had their offices, to come at the obscure back of the building (where the financial records were kept) (Complaint, ¶ 38); the “black box” and other flight path anomalies, and the conflict with the Commission‟s computer simulation (Complaint, ¶2); the contradictory statements by Rumsfeld about the damage, and about his whereabouts and movements that morning (Id, ¶¶ 45); and myriad other details casting doubt on the official account.

This is just one sentence, albeit a rather long and rambling one punctuated with the overuse of semicolons, but I count at least 5 logical and factual errors in that sentence alone. Maybe I am missing some. I did read it rather quickly. Anyone want to check my work?

And even I, jaded as I have become after years of this, was shocked to see this claim:

Examples include evidence, including video evidence, of secondary explosions at the Pentagon; evidence showing that radar records of the Pentagon plane were tampered with; evidence showing a pattern of destruction and damage in the area of plaintiff‟s Pentagon office impossible to reconcile with a plane crash, and showing that parts from a small military plane, an “A-3 Skywarrior” were found in the Pentagon ruins.

An A-3 Skywarrior? Really? Even the Loose Change guys gave that up, like, 4 versions ago. Is International Man of Mystery Karl Schwarz going to be called back from running his nanotech company in Vienna to act as an expert witness?

Some More Guilt By Association

Box Boy, we know. Who is Ian R. Crane?

“Fool me once …” was recorded live at the Glastonbury Symposium in July 2007. Ian R Crane, past Chair of the UK 9/11 Truth Campaign...

Okay, so a Brit Troofer. But what's this about a False Flag Event in 2012?

Ian also introduces Project ZION and presents his startling prediction of what is being planned to accelerate implementation of the One World Government … a False Flag fake Alien Invasion to be staged at 2012 London Olympics.

Yep, the New World Order has a False Flag fake Alien Invasion planned for next year. At the Olympics.

You know what the beauty of these predictions is? Even if you're wrong, you're right, because you turn it into your great success at preventing the false flag attack by alerting the people so the evil schemers had to change their plans. Here's a post by a right-wing kook last year, predicting a false-flag terrorist attack by Obama in order to stave off the lambasting the Democrats took last November:

That party is now being threatened with being thrown out of power. If that party is evil enough and fascist enough to cause an economic catastrophe, it is certainly evil and fascist enough to cause a physical catastrophe, an Ultimate October Surprise, that will frighten and enrage voters enough to preserve its power in November.

What could this be? The most likely would be another 9/11, a massively horrific terrorist attack, perhaps even nuclear. An attack for which no one or no group will claim responsibility, no Al Qaeda, no Osama bin Laden, no Timothy McVeigh - just a plethora of pointed fingers at a multitude of suspects, without any sufficiently hard evidence to implicate one in particular.

And he ends by calling on the people to rise up and let Obama's minions know they won't get away with it:

Millions of such messages delivered ever week from now to November 2nd may convince even Rahm Emanuel to abandon the evil he and his fellow Dems are planning.

And then, on an Election Day that has seen no October Surprise but a Dem Demolition instead, we can all congratulate ourselves and say to each other, This was no accident, Comrades.

And you know what? This is the secret behind Alex Jones' supposed prediction of 9-11:

Get it? He was setting himself up to be the man who prevented a terrorist attack, not the man who predicted a terrorist attack.

Anyway, back to Ian R. Crane and his fantasies of a fake alien invasion at the Olympics. See that part about Project ZION? Well, the organizers of the London Olympics came up with a logo for the games and the kooks went nuts:

Most normal folks would look at that top part and see London Olympics 2012. But the kooks see the bottom part--read down and then across and it looks a little like ZION, if you turn the last 2 90 degrees clockwise.

Oh, and here are the official mascots for the London Olympics:

You see? They look like aliens! The bastards are announcing their plans beforehand!

Now, with all that, you can probably see why Gage is appearing on the stage with this fruitcake: Because the idiots who believe this crap will probably believe his crap. But (you knew there had to be a but, didn't you?) it turns out there's even more. Check out this video of Mr Crane in Wales last year:

About 6:30 in he mentions that he gave a lecture at the Deep Politics conference in May 2010, where he pointed out the number of people in the US government who had two passports (implying American and Israeli). He says Alex Jones can't talk about Zionism in America, because if he does, he'll be shut down. And then he adds:

"The equivalent we've got in this country is to question the Holocaust. You know, it's a non-subject. All you're going to do is bring the whole weight of the Jewish community down on you--you're going to present your head on a platter."

So not only is Gage sharing the stage with a complete nutter, he's sharing it with a Holocaust-Denier. Why am I no longer shocked?

Troofer Comic Books Coming

Rick Veitch is a talented guy; I loved the Greyshirt series (an homage to the Spirit) he did with Alan Moore about a decade ago. But this sounds like crap:

And this isn't the first time Veitch has used 9/11 as a theme. In his Vertigo Comics graphic novel Can't Get No, he used one man's lost week before, during and after the attacks as a view of it from the microcosm, but with The Big Lie, Veitch says, "we're trying to present the whole macroscopic landscape of politics, finance and military."

Going into this project, he didn't consider himself a "Truther," yet living during the eras of the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran/Contra and the invasion of Iraq, Veitch admits that he's skeptical about any "official" story provided by the government.

"Reading the 9/11 Commission Report, it's pretty clear that a lot of important evidence about the lead-up to the attacks and the collapse of the towers was ignored or glossed over," he explains.

Why do I get the feeling that he's never read The Looming Tower or the NIST Reports?

Incidentally, this isn't the first Troofer comic book; about five years ago Spain Rodriguez (creator of Trashman!) did one called Dies Irae.

Update: Apparently this was a hired-out project with a Truther named Brian Romanoff contracting the work to Image Comics and Veitch:

It is in the name of truth and justice for the victims of 9/11 and their family members, that we are committed to sharing the truth about what occurred on September 11th. Truth Be Told Comics (TBT) was formed to facilitate the project of getting critical 9/11 information before the huge number of comic readers across America and the world. Our goal is to present the most obvious elements of the 9/11 crimes and cover-up: the multiple advanced warnings, the multiple war-games on the day of, our missing air defense system, the demolitions of the WTC towers, 9/11 Commission Report and more.

Romanoff is a typical Troofer fruitcake. Protests Bohemian Grove:

Yet the ritual on this day includes only one protester, bearded, lanky Brian Romanoff, 28, who has been working mostly alone since the two-week encampment began on July 16. He says he has adopted a nonconfrontational approach, better to spread the truth about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.

Two words: controlled demolition.

No particular surprise, he's got the creative facial hair thing going on in the photo that accompanies the article.

How Exactly Did We Get Involved in This?

Some Canadian has made a series of bizarre videos interviewing Jonathan Kay on his recent Among the Truthers book. This in and of itself is not remarkable, although Kay seems amazingly calm sitting there listening to this idiot, but the part that really cracked me up is the video mentions us, not once, but twice, even though we never came up in the actual interview, including a caption reading, "Screw Loose Change!... Are you for real?"

We must be doing something right if the nutters are seeing us in their sleep.

Leopold's New Scoop

Is just like his old scoop, which came from the kitty litter box. This is getting highlighted over at 9-11 Flogger:

For many Americans, the emotional reaction to President Barack Obama's announcement last month that a Navy Seal team had killed Osama bin Laden during a raid at his compound in Pakistan was celebratory. But for others, like the mysterious Iron Man, who has spent his career lurking in the shadows, the death of the late al-Qaeda leader is a painful reminder of what could have been avoided had the government heeded numerous early warnings of an impending attack against the very targets terrorists struck on 9/11.

Yes, the usual, "if they'd only listened to me," crap. Get the early warning:

For example, Iron Man states in his letter that in the summer of 2000, DO5 briefed USJFCOM senior intelligence officials and staffers, including the deputy commander in chief, on the "WMD Threat to the U.S."

Iron Man describes a "sensitive," "oral briefing" that took place that summer "indicating that the World Trade Centers #1 and #2 were the most likely buildings to be attacked [by al-Qaeda], followed closely by the Pentagon. The briefer indicated that the worst case scenario would be one tower collapsed onto another."

Wow, talk about prescient! Somebody actually predicted that al Qaeda would topple one building into another! It's a miraculous bit of intelligence.

Well, except for one little thing. It's the exact plot that Ramsi Yousef attempted in 1993 with his bomb in the parking garage.

Furthermore, as he states in his letter, Iron Man was certain that such a scenario was part of a "red cell analysis" discussion that took place prior to the intelligence briefing and included a finding that the buildings "could be struck by a jetliner." He wrote that there was a suggestion about alerting WTC security and engineering or architectural staff, "but the idea was not further explored because of a command climate discouraging contact with the civilian community."

The part about struck by a jetliner is indeed interesting and would actually be prescient. But Leopold does not include that portion of the letter, and of course, this is somewhat like Able Danger; a claim made after the fact with no evidence other than the claim that, "Iron Man was certain." Oh, and that bit about warning the WTC security and engineering or architectural staff is priceless. What were they supposed to do, mount anti-aircraft guns on the sides of the buildings?

Given Leopold's history--he notoriously claimed that Karl Rove had been indicted for perjury in the Valerie Plame case, which never happened--he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.

As usual, the real hilarity is in the comments:

The real story of what happened on 9-11 will be revealed. Right after they tell us what happened at Pearl Harbor in 1943 and what happened in Dallas in 1963.

Embarrassing indeed but there are about 10 comments in reply to that thread before somebody notices that 1943 is the wrong year for Pearl Harbor. My favorite is this guy:

I can tell you what happened in Dallas. and I was not even born until 2 weeks after it happened.

Egged on, he elaborates:

Four teams of shooters. Oswald Brading Fratiano and Roselli who fired the fatal shots. Oswald was a willing participant but did not know he was being set up. Reasons he was chosen as the patsy was the Russian wife and little known fact Oswald was working for JFK under Hoover closing down the anti-Castro training camps in the Gulf region of the US. Each team had a timer and supervisor whose responsibility was to pick up the weapons and casings. They threw Oswalds rifle behind the boxes on the sixth floor and his fate was sealed. E Howard Hunt and GW Bush were the planners along with G Ford who planned the route. Failed BOP invasion codename Zapata same as HWs offshore oil co. Ruby was small time mafia as was most of the Dallas PD thats why Brading was able to fire from the Dal Tex building w/o fear of prosecution. Several of the operatives were arrested and released. Motives for JFKs murder were numerous. Exec orders abolishing the FED the firing of Allan Dulles for carrying out the failed Bay of Pigs invasion against his orders. The fact JFK would not sign on to Northwoods and JFK refused to be controlled by the Jesuits and the Vatican. Now take that info and research for yourself our collective intelligence will thank you when youve caught up. Or drink the koolaid.

And:

Great...

.....but
.
you left out the Israeli Mossad Connection. All the underworld guys you mentioned even the dallas police and prosecutors office worked for the Syndicate, i.e Meyer Lansky, the capo of capo's, little Big Man, the dude who told everyone in US organized crime what to do. Why the Israeli connection? Because (1) the CIA and the Mossad have been coonected at the hip since their respective births following WWII. Here the OSS used organized crime in europe and the US to support wartime operations. That brought the OSS into contact with Lansky who brought them into contact with the Jewish underwold in Europe which would later form the foundations of Mossad.

Marvin Bush, Dubya's brother worked for the security company that guarded the World Trade Center.

And for many weeks, before 9/11, massive "construction" was performed on these buildings, with armed guards stationed to keep curious people out.

Through the Looking Glass

We highlighted Box Boy Gage's current trip to Ireland and the fact that he was sharing a stage with other flavors of Kook Aid: anti-fluoridation nutbars, anti-vaxxers, and mind-control fruitcakes. Of course, part of the reason we highlighted that was because associating Gage with these other nuts just goes to show what a lunatic he is.

So it was kind of amusing to read this post at a pro-vaccine blog.

It’s official: Wakefield joins the ranks of Truthers, New World Order conspiracists.

Andrew Wakefield is the British doctor whose fraudulent study concluded that vaccinations cause autism.

Anyway it occurred to me that it was a little odd that each of us is using the other's foe to bash our particular opponent. "Look at these crazy people Richard/Andrew is hanging around with now!"

Why is it odd? Well, think about it for a second. I know very little about vaccines and next to nothing about the Wakefield controversy. And I suspect that Seth Mnookin is not an expert on 9-11 Truthers and their claims. We each know in a general sense that the other's opponents are generally discredited, and that's about all we need to know.

So why do we do it? That's the question I pondered last night as I trundled off to bed, and here's what I came up with. Those of us who took logic may remember the Venn Diagram, which is a way of representing groups. For example, here's a very simple Venn Diagram showing Truthers:

As you can see, there is a subset of the overall population who are Truthers. Now let's add the Anti-Vaxxers:

So we have two subsets now of the General Population: Truthers and Anti-Vaxxers. But we really haven't represented things quite correctly here, because now there is a third group: The people who are both Truthers and Anti-Vaxxers. There is overlap between the two groups:

But we're still not done yet. Among the Truthers there is some overlap with the Anti-Vaxxers (light blue area). There are also Truthers who are not Anti-Vaxxers (deeper blue area) but who are not concerned about associating with them. And there's a third group: Truthers who are horrified that their movement is being associated with the Anti-Vaxxer contingent, and realize this discredits them:

As you can see, there is a corresponding contingent of Anti-Vaxxers who are horrified that their cause is being associated with the 9-11 nutjobs.

Of course, we haven't really completed all the possibilities. Rather than Truthers and Anti-Vaxxers, substitute "Potential Truthers" and "Potential Anti-Vaxxers". And you'll then see that there's a subset of Potential Anti-Vaxxers who would be horrified to learn that this cause they're curious about is associated with the blackshirts chanting, "9-11 was an inside job!" Who might pause and realize that it's just another bit of crankery.

And, in essence, that's who Seth's post is aimed at:

Memo to the parents (and the press): The next time someone tells you the MMR vaccine causes autism (or pitches you a story on the “controversy” over the measles vaccine and autism), remember — this is the man whose discredited, debunked research is the source for all of that.

Box Boy on Irish TV

Some excellent skepticism by the two presenters. I was amused to see that Gage included the Box Experiment that Changed the World and Kevin McPadden's ridiculous story in his Blueprint for Morons DVD. Once again we get the "into its own footprint" nonsense combined with "ejected outwards 600 feet," as if there's no contradiction between the two claims. Note as well that Gage talks about the "several other problems" that folks will learn at the conferences, like the kookery about autism and vaccinations.

As you can hear, Box Boy is celebrating the 1500th clown to join his circus. A PR release was sent out, coinciding with his Irish tour. See if you can spot the controversy here:
Websites:

http://www.ae911truth.org - Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org http://www.mo911truth.org - military officers
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org - pilots
http://firefightersfor911truth.org - fire-fighters
http://io911truth.com - Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.911independentcommission.org - 911 families
http://www.reinvestigate911.org - UK based

Yep, Balsamo, John (The Martians will be Holograms) Lear, Guy (lives in a van down by the river) Razer and Captain Sherlock from Pilots for 9-11 Truthiness are linked. John Lear:

Here's the concluding portion of "CAPTAIN SHERLOCK SOLVES 911" (you can mute the volume for the first 3 minutes as it's just a piano solo recorded way too loud):

As you can see, he makes Gage look sane by comparison.

IO911Truth.com is abandoned, as is militaryofficersfor911truth.org.

Push Poll Shows Support for New Investigation of Building 7

Since I was asked to nicely by a family member (hat tip) I'll comment on the latest Truther idiocy.

First the Truther Version:

As the 10 Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches quickly, a new Siena poll shows that half of New Yorkers today are in support of a new probe into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

Now the reality. Let's start out by examining the poll questions that dealt with WTC-7.

Q4, Are you aware that in addition to the Twin Towers, another skyscraper in the World Trade Center complex collapsed on 9-/11?

On that one, about 2/3rds of the respondents said yes. Notably, the least likely to say yes were aged 18-34 (54%) women (61%) and those who had "less than college" education (61%).

Q5 (If aware of the collapse of another skyscraper) When did you first become aware of the collapse of this third skyscraper?

This is pretty embarrassing for the Remember Building 7 dolts. A full 82% of those who knew about the third skyscraper falling found out about it on 9-11 or shortly afterwards. Only 4% said they found out about it in the last few years. Heckuva job with those educational advertisements, guys!

Q6 (If aware of the collapse of another skyscraper) From the following list of the ways that people may have come to find out about the collapse of the third skyscraper, which was the first way that you became aware of its collapse?

I guess the most surprising thing about the results here is that the second most common way of hearing about it was from another person (18%). Over half (55%) heard about it from various forms of mainstream media (TV, radio, newspapers). You know, that mainstream media that never covered the collapse of Building 7?

Only about 20% of the respondents could name the third buildng that collapsed correctly. Men (30%) did quite a bit better than women (14%), younger people did better than seniors, and those with a college degree (30%) did better than those without the sheepskin (16%).

Q9. (If aware of collapse of another skyscraper) Of the following, what in your opinion was the primary cause of the collapse of Building 7 at the World Trade Center on 9/11?

Only 24% said controlled demolition. Now we can pretty much assume that anybody who wasn't aware of the collapse of Building 7 is not a Truther, which indicates that something like 16% (2/3rds times 24%) of the respondents to the poll are Truthers. And the crosstabs reveal some interesting facts about the controlled demolition crowd. They are more likely to be men (27%) than women (21%), more likely to be Democrats (24%) than Republicans (12%), yet more likely to be conservative (27% than liberal (22%). I'm not sure what to make of those last two results, but the overall poll only surveyed 634 people, so the margin of error on the crosstabs is quite a bit higher than on the overall results.

Q10. In 2008, the federal government issued a report that found that fires caused this skyscraper, World Trade Center Building 7, to collapse. Critics, including a group of more than 1,400 architects and engineers, have argued against the findings of the report stating that prior to 9/11, no steel-framed skyscraper had
ever collapsed as a result of fire. These critics suggest that only the use of explosives can account for Building 7's collapse. Are you more inclined to believe the findings of the federal government that fire caused Building 7's collapse or the critics that believe explosives were responsible?

Here's where the push-polling comes in. After being pushed with the 1400 architects and engineers nonsense, suddenly the number of people believing in controlled demolition goes up to 36%. Women (39%) suddenly believe it more than men (33%), but still those with college degrees (28%) are less likely to be impressed with Gage's clown posse than those without (43%).

Q11. Many have signed a petition calling for a NEW investigation into Building 7's collapse. Others consider the case closed and do not think a new investigation is warranted. Would you be in favor of or opposed to a local government agency like the New York City Council or Manhattan District Attorney opening a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7?

A total of 48%, having been pushed by the 1400 idiots, now support a new investigation of Building 7. Men (51%) support it more than women (45%), the young (62%) more than the old (36%), those with less than a college degree (55%) more than those with diplomas (39%), the unemployed (50%) more than the employed (48%).

Somebody over at Flogger suggested looking at the crosstabs to see how outreach should be targeted to those most receptive to the "Truth". Looking at that last result, I'd say that the most receptive group has been young, less-educated, men without jobs. Shocking, I know.

On the 48% figure being pushed, how many people would have agreed with a new investigation if they'd been told that nobody died in the collapse of Building 7? How many would have agreed if they'd been given a comparison of Richard Gage's resume and that of Shyam Sunder?

Update: See also Triterope's analysis at JREF.

Yes, I'm Amazed Too

Quote of the week, concerning Gage's attendance at the Irish kook festival we spotlighted a few days ago:

Has Gage been doing these kind of events before? He should never have done this. I'm actually amazed that he buys into conspiracy theories, I thought he was a scientist.

(Bolding added for emphasis)

In answer to the question, he appeared at that financial scam conference last year.

Update: James reminded me that Gage spoke at the "Conscious Life Expo" a few months ago. Here's their list of DVDs on "Conspiracy":

Gage was on the 9-11 Panel with such luminaries as Michelle Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas, and John Heard, most noted as the dad in Home Alone.

A Report from Conspiracy Con

Over at a local Santa Clara blog.

Dietrich is also a compelling story-teller, and his rococo tales of diabolical practices at the highest levels of military power would stand to make him quite successful as a sci-fi novelist, scriptwriter, or graphic novelist. Except Deitrich doesn't present his dark stories as fiction.

Dietrich covers a lot of ground in his rapid-fire presentation. One minute we're in 12th century Japan, the next in 1945 Okinawa.

Here's a teaser of Deitrich:

WWII didn't end in 1945? Crap, I guess I got that question wrong back in high school.

This is a promising start for an Indiana Jones movie. But, instead of Hollywood-brand escapism, the next hour and a half is a whirlwind roundup of – I'm putting this as plainly as possible – satanic occult practices at the San Francisco Presidio army base, with tangential forays into Roswell and Nazi Germany. Before we're done, we'll make pit stops at the Dresden firebombing, the Holocaust, L.Ron Hubbard, and that noted Satanist Sammy Davis Junior.

If you play "The Candy Man" backwards, it says, "I love Satan."

Our old buddy Sofia from 9-11 Mysteries makes an appearance:

When we look at an organization called MITRE, .you go to their website, and their mission is to set the goals and the template for the…IRS….and they contract with operation cloverleaf… and if you google USA today for May 12…the reporters talk about a thousand particles on the head of a pin….Get those letters and know those individuals. Those are the cross directors of the enemy we have to deal with today."

Unfortunately no info yet on Steven Jones and his perpetual motion machine, or Richard Gage. And I hear that Wild Bill Deagle and his attack baboons made an appearance as well. As a consolation, here's Deagle at last year's con:

It takes him a bit to get started, but there's certainly plenty of wack in there.

Am I The Only One

To notice the incongruity in this ad, which starts out talking about "my husband, uncle, son," and ends with "Remember Building 7"?

Paul Craig Roberts and Sibel Edmonds

On her podcast former interpreter Sibel Edmonds interviews former economist Paul Craig Roberts. Neither has much credibility at this point to begin with, but they actually manage to undermine what little they had. Roberts rants on for several minutes on the Osama bin Laden killing, amazingly arguing that it was not believable that the Navy SEALS could have engaged in a 40 minute firefight with bin Laden without "suffering a scratch". Nevermind that the 40 minutes is how long they were on the ground total, the firefight itself was only part of that, there is also the the fact that SEALS are pretty damn good at what they do. If they visit you in the middle of the night, the odds are you will lose. Then to get even more bizarre he argues that we should just "cut off any movement in, and any movement out" and wait for bin Laden to surrender so we could interrogate him.

Gee, I can't see any problems with that approach...

Anyway in response to Roberts' claim that al Qaeda was made up by the CIA, Edmonds insists that none of the translators at the FBI had heard the term before 9/11:

But these language specialists, these are people with Top Secret clearances they said that they never dealt with anything that had al Qaeda in it. This group included all the FBI’s language specialists who had been there for 15 years, 10 years, 20 years never dealt with the name al Qaeda before September 11th.

OK, well aside from the fact that these were FBI translators, not foreign intelligence specialists for the CIA or NSA, so it is entirely possible they did not come across it in their official duties, I seriously doubt that Islamist sleeper agents in Florida are going to send e-mails with "al Qaeda" in the signature line, it is just silly to pretend that this was a post-9/11 creation. In fact it was in common usage before 9/11, even by people who were not Arabic language specialists. I first heard the term in 1998 while watching a documentary on Osama bin Laden. 9/11 Myths has a partial line up here.

Pathetic.

New Video Features Ghosts of Truthers Past

RK Owens put these together. This one features Nico and some unknown Truther (some profanity NSFW):

Here's Bermas, pre-dental work:

Yes, we went to the moon, but not in rockets. Bermas really loses it in this section:

The Truther Girls

Hey, I have been following the Truthers for years, and I have never had some freaky woman dedicate an entire YouTube video to me. OK, this may be a good thing, but I am still oddly jealous... Don't miss the singing at the end.

Some More Guilt By Association

Apparently Joshua Blakeney griped about how my pointing out that he is a columnist for Veterans Today and that Holocaust Denier Ernst Zundel's wife is also a columnist for VT, was a classic example of the "guilt by association" fallacy. Of course, Blakeney apparently is not aware of what the real "guilt by association" fallacy is; guess that Professor Anthony J. Hall doesn't teach much critical thinking.

Guilt by association is when you take a comparatively trivial commonality between one person and another and then ascribe the unrelated bad things about the first person to the second. For example:

Hitler was a vegetarian and evil.
Morgan Spurlock is a vegetarian.
Therefore, Morgan Spurlock is evil.

Being a vegetarian is a trivial similarity to Hitler. Being a columnist for a website that also has a Holocaust Denier columnist is not a trivial similarity.

Anyway, that's not really what this post is about, but I wanted to get it out of the way before I get accused of guilt by association again.

Box Boy Richard Gage is headed to Ireland in June:


And just who else is on the bill?

Dr Andrew Wakefield:

Andrew Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher known for his fraudulent[1] claims of a causative connection between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, autism and autistic enterocolitis.

On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found some three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children.[7] The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research.

Alan Watt appears to be the Canadian Alex Jones.

Walter Graham is an anti-fluoridation kook in Ireland. F. William Engdahl is a former Lyndon LaRouche disciple. Kevin Flanagan is a pusher of the Freemen On the Land nuttery. And Luke Rudkowski is of course famous as the founder of We Are Change; less commonly known is that Luke was kicked out of WAC several months ago due to financial irregularities.

After years of suspicion and accusations by former and current members of We Are Change NYC, Luke Rudkowski has been ousted stemming from months, if not years, of internal conflict regarding the groups finances. Palpable tension between Rudkowski and the body of members of We Are Change began in the weeks following their September 11th, 2010 fundraiser for First Responders.

As the weeks turned into months following 9/11 fundraising events in September, members grew concerned which turned into anger. From discussions with many from the group this apparently was nothing new. Members reported this to to become an annual trend. Questions would be raised concerning the finances following the 9/11 fundraising event with the group at that point, stonewalled. Tension rose and by mid-November Rudkowski was refusing to appear at any of the scheduled We Are Change meetings to discuss the groups finances.

Richard Gage should fit right in with this crew.

Among the Truthers: The Review

We have been talking about Jonathan Kay's new book Among the Truthers for some time now, but I have finally had the time to read it all. That doesn't stop the Truthers from reviewing it of course, all of whom have universally denounced it mostly without showing any indication that they actually read it.

Now I will be the first to admit that I am biased, since I was interviewed for the book, as well as quoted in it, and the book cites us as one of the major debunking resources, but then again I can also say that I know quite a bit about the subject.

Now first of all, what is this book about? As Truthers are pointing out, it is not a debunking book. They of course claim that Kay refuses to look at the evidence, while if you read the book Kay makes clear that he did look at the evidence, but found it wanting. Kay explains rather, that 1. he really didn't have much new to add to the debunking argument (he cites several books and Internet sites, including this one, as resources for this), and 2. his editor didn't think that there was a market for such a book, because the Truthers would not believe anything he put and everyone else didn't need to be told. I agree to a certain extent, although we have done a lot of debunking over the last 5 years, I have gotten to the point where about all I discuss is the psychology of this movement, because really, is much really added by our pointing out for the 15th time that the hijackers actually were on the flight manifests?

So Kay gets mainly into the composition of the Truthers and other similar conspiracy theorists and asks why they believe what they do. In this he does a pretty good job. The Truthers of course condemn him for ad hominem attacks, but in reality, he is actually rather kind to them, much kinder than I would be, although he obviously does not agree with their viewpoint. Despite this though he does primarily depict them as earnest and intelligent people, who just, for various reasons come to the wrong conclusions. Kay obviously did his research and quotes from interviews from various prominent characters in the Truther movement, and does provide some insight which a mere blogger cannot. His depictions of Michael Ruppert, Richard Gage and Steven Jones especially are among the most interesting.

The weakest part of the book, however, is the last section where he discusses the role of academics and then how we should address conspiracy theories in the educational system. It just seemed rather tacked on and not tightly connected to the rest. On the whole though, if you are interested in conspiracy theorists as a social phenomenon, and if you are reading this blog I assume you are, then it is a book well worth reading.

9/11 Charges Reinstated

I am a bit behind on this story, but the Obama administration recently announced that charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 4 other members of al Qaeda were recently reinstated in military tribunals. Of course this still won't stop Truthers from going on about how Osama isn't being charged....

Dear 9/11 Families,

We wanted to inform you that charges will be sworn tomorrow against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa al Hawsawi for their involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The eight charges common to all five of the accused are: Conspiracy, Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Attacking Civilians, Attacking Civilian Objects, Intentionally Causing Serious Bodily Injury, Destruction of Property in Violation of the Law of War, Hijacking Aircraft, and Terrorism.

The Conspiracy charge details 167 overt acts allegedly committed in furtherance of the 9/11 attacks, and alleges the following against the five accused in the following order:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is alleged to have been the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks by proposing the operational concept to Usama bin Laden as early as 1996, obtaining approval and funding from Usama bin Laden for the attacks, overseeing the entire operation, and training the hijackers in all aspects of the operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Of course the Truthers will also go on about how KSM was waterboarded, although there is no indication that the trial will even introduce any confession as evidence, well, other than the fact that he pled guilty, years after the last waterboarding.