Rove: Stomp on Birthers and "9-11 Deniers"

Amen. We don't cover the Birthers around here, but they're right up there with the Truthers in terms of brainpower. In fact, one of the original Birthers was also a major Troofer: Phil Berg. A recent poll indicated that as many as 51% of Republican primary voters believe Obama was not born in the United State. Now, as Rove indicates, that's probably about as likely as the polls from a couple years back that indicated something like half of all Democrats were 9-11 Troofers. But any number much over 10% is a cause for concern.

Why They're 9-11 Deniers

Terrific post by Neighborhood Rationalist:

Organizations like al Qaeda leave their indelible mark wherever they go. 9/11 deniers are required to pretend that those marks are just Western operatives covering their own tracks – an obvious delusion to everyone who has seen it in action, knows its members, and knows those who are tempted by it and any other extremist organization. To me, this is the key – 9/11 deniers flatly deny virtually every relevant event in the lead-up to 9/11. They deny that centuries of geopolitical events ever occurred. To them, history begins at the Balfour Declaration, crescendos when Ronald Reagan begins supplying anti-Communist rebels in Afghanistan, and ends when George Bush plants bombs in the North Tower and scampers off in a black helicopter. Between these pockmarks on the historical landscape there are thousands of religious ideologues, millions of oppressed victims of colonialism, and countless strategic opportunists struggling to guide human affairs to their own ends. 9/11 denier history is the shallowest history of all, one that requires them to reject the needs, desires, machinations and schemes of billions of people across centuries. 9/11 denial is reality denial.

I would just add that his emailer said this:

As I'm sure you are aware, Holocaust Denial is the belief that the Holocaust simply did not take place, that the event did not occur.

Actually Nizkor notes that there are three main elements of Holocaust Denial:

1. Deny the number (five to six million Jews exterminated).
2. Deny the plan (Nazi attempt to destroy the Jews)
3. Deny the method (many by gassing, although plenty were shot or died of starvation/privation).

Now, impose that template on 9-11. Some Truthers deny the number (for example, David L. Griscom with his "all the passengers survived" hypothesis). Almost all of them deny the method (collapse of the buildings caused by fire and structural damage), and the plan (Al Qaeda and 19 hijackers).

An Evening With the 9-11 Deniers

Jeffrey Shallit, who appears to be an Accounting Professor (Correction: Computer Science Professor), discusses his attendance at an event featuring the Canadian branch of the kooks:

Why didn't the Debate Society present someone on the other side? I was told they tried, but couldn't find anyone. But they are a "debate society", not a "one-sided presentation" society, and they had an obligation to find someone to respond to the falsehoods that were presented.

Professor Shallit has put together several excellent posts on the presentations he attended:

On AK Dewdney's claim that the cellphone calls could not have been made.

This gives some background to Dewdney's presentation on March 19. He started by stating that his expertise is in cell phone calls, and that he has learned a lot about them since he began his investigations. (Dewdney, it appears, has no formal training in cellular communication. The theme of people speaking beyond their trained expertise is one that would repeat itself during the evening.)

Indeed.

Part II of Dewdney:

He showed a picture of one of the towers with an arrow pointing to part of it, with a caption reading "Molton [sic] steel pours from side of WTC 1". The resolution of the picture didn't allow me to conclude that anything molten at all was pouring out, certainly not molten steel. If anything was pouring out, why couldn't it have been molten aluminum? Aluminum melts at 660° C, while steel melts at 1370-1550° C.

On Theologian Graeme McQueen's discussion:

This indeed, sounds very modest. But soon the veneer of reasonableness was stripped away, as he described the generally-accepted model of the Towers' collapse and then said, "A rather obvious fraud, in my view." This kind of behavior is typical of the "9/11 Truth" movement. Their claims are outlandish and unsupported; yet if you do not agree, you are in league with fraud. By using the word "fraud", MacQueen denigrates the dozens of structural engineers, fire engineers, and civil engineers who have looked into the buildings' collapse and have paintstakingly devised the generally-accepted theory. There is no legitimate reason to believe that all these researchers have engaged in fraudulent activity, and it is a gross calumny to say so.

Yep, the rather obvious fraud is being committed by the "Truthers".

During his presentation, MacQueen referred several times to the Journal of 9/11 Studies for support for his claims. The editors of this "journal" are Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, and Steven Jones -- three men heavily involved in the "9/11 Truth" movement. No one taking issue with "9/11 Truth" claims is involved. This is not a scholarly journal in any sense of the word; it is a propaganda outfit for deniers.

Kaaaa-ching!

He also takes on the purported moderator of the debate, who of course was not moderate:

Lee claimed that "Serious scholarship will be presented to you tonight". In fact, what we heard were the standard falsehoods of the 9/11 Truth movement, and discussion of the fine points of building collapse by a man not even remotely qualified to discuss the issue. Lee claimed that he would present "a forum in an atmosphere of open-minded scholarly challenge". But there was no challenge, since no one from the opposing side was permitted to speak. The question period was extremely limited.

Kudos to Professor Shallit for putting up with an evening of this nonsense to bring us his account!

But Let's Get to the Point, Let's Roll Another Joint....

The 9-11 Crackpots get glowing coverage by High Times (yeah, I had no clue it was still around either). Among the more risible claims:

"Even among those who denigrate the 'so-called conspiracy theorists... Griffin is considered one of the most respected, prolific and eloquent doubters in the Sept. 11 Truth Movement."

Come on! Speaking as one who denigrates the conspiracy liars, Griffin is as flaky as Dylan Avery; indeed it is arguable that Dylan's more careful than DRG. Griffin believes in mediums, reincarnation and other nutty parapsychology claims, in addition to endorsing just about every 9-11 crank theory under the sun.

The next entry recommends Flight 93 by Rowland Morgan. This was the book where I found an obvious and silly error in the first paragraph, which had Flight 93 taking off from Boston Logan airport.

The official story of Flight 93 tells of four men who checked in at the United Airlines ticket counter at Boston Logan airport on 11 September 2001 bound for Los Angeles on United 93, a Boeing 757 airliner.

The rest of the recommendations are the usual stew of Loose Change and Synthetic Terror, but the writer does take a dim view of "In Plane Site", calling it "sheer disinformation, a loopy film designed to intentionally discredit the Sept. 11 Truth Movement...."

Surprisingly, there's no softcore 9-11 recommendation like Press For Truth; this is clearly a discussion of the full-on MIHOP theories. And the "Sept. 11" bit is incredibly stupid, an editorial stodginess at a magazine supposedly hip and edgy.

A V-Tard Lectures Michelle Malkin

Most of it is a fact-free rant, but he does cite Louie Cacchioli, who did indeed get angry about the 9-11 Commission, but is not a "Truther".

Rather than a sleeping America, Louie Cacchioli sees people who are acutely aware of the terrorist threat, ever mindful that it might happen again, anytime, anywhere.

Cacchioli is also angry. He's read the final 9-11 Commission report recently released by the bipartisan National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States investigating the lead up to the terrorist attacks. He concludes that people in high places failed him and failed their country when the nation was so stunned and unprepared for a terrorist assault.

The video is remarkable mainly for the fact that the kid fits the stereotype of 9-11 Denier perfectly; in fact at times "Chris" seems like a parody. Angry white male in his late teens, early 20s? Check. Wearing a black shirt? Check. Has V posters and a mask on his wall? Check. "Interesting" hair? Check. Seems a few bezels shy of a diffuser case? Check.

At any rate, we have a new leader in the "9-11 Denier most likely to go postal" category.

Tell Us What You Really Think!

The Big Dog takes on the "Truthers" and pulls no punches:

The Truthers are absolutely, without a doubt, not in their right minds. These people stopped drinking the kool aid and now have an IV of the stuff going around the clock. Their tin foil hats are definitely wound way too tightly around their pin heads and the blood flow to their small brains has been cut off. These people should not be allowed out in public and they should have to be heavily sedated at all times. There should be a national round up to get these people off the streets and into institutions where they belong. They are a danger to themselves as they have lost all touch with reality. In essence, they are severely mentally ill. I do not know how to put it any other way because they obviously suffer from some mental disorder. It is the only way to explain the madness.

That's why we're building the FEMA death camps, BD!

Conspiracy Letters

The Seattle Times published several in their latest edition, with some extremely dubious claims.

For example, structural steel cannot be melted by an open kerosene fire (or your engine block would melt before you pulled out of the garage).

First time we've heard that analogy!

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) confirmed jet-fuel fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel. Yet, molten metal was found at the base of WTC Buildings 1, 2 and 7 weeks after 9/11, further suggesting explosives.

The BBC on Sept. 23, 2001, reported that four of the alleged 19 hijackers are alive, yet these same names were included in the 9/11 commission report. David Ray Griffin's "9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" provides a thorough examination.

For the 10,001st time, the hijackers are not alive.

Other factors influence my feeling on the matter more than that. For instance, why were interceptor jets not sent to intercept for such a long time, and why were so many of them away on that particular day doing exercises simulating what actually happened? Why were many warnings from intelligence agencies discounted prior to the actual incident?

Just because some kid in a black tee shirt tells you something doesn't mean you should believe it.

The NIST report, on the collapse of the twin towers, has been criticized by the engineering community for, among other things, reaching conclusions unsupported by the data it collected; not calculating the maximum loads the towers could take; and not even simulating the collapse of the towers. None of the official studies proved the official story; they merely assumed it to be true. All the 9/11 truth community wants are studies that answer the questions of legitimate concern.

Now the engineering community is on board the Kook Express? No, as we have discussed endlessly here, one of the major problems the 9-11 Deniers have is that they can't get any structural engineers on board.

History Channel to Air Special on 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

Hard to tell at this point how hard it will be on the crackpots. There are some very good signs:

An interview with James Miegs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, who refutes many of these theories. Watch as experts in the fields of aeronautics, engineering and the military put these theories to the test.

Not hard to imagine how the Deniers will react to that. "Experts? We don't need no stinking experts! Besides, they're all in the pay of the government!"

The 9-11 Bloggers are squealing like stuck pigs:

(If) They don't include interviews with 9/11 family members, or 9/11 first responders, and instead, only focus on Alex, Webster, and Prof. Jones, then this documentary is nothing but a half truth. Not even half, more like a quarter.

The above is Jon Gold, who of course wants a piece on the air quality alone, like that's the most important part of the "Truth" movement. It always makes me shake my head that people who focus on the air quality issue nevertheless associate with the "controlled demolition at the WTC and no 757 at the Pentagon" crowd. Don't they understand that those people sap the credibility of the air quality argument? Or do they sense that the air quality argument is just as phony as the controlled demolition claims?

i expect nothing less than a hit piece from the likes of The History Channel. they have a well documented history of covering the governments ass in all areas. they recently ran a special with Gerald Posner going on and on about how amazing Oswald was etc. and one about how Sirhan Sirhan acted alone. really pathetic stuff. its all about editing. Tarpley is strong when given ample time to speak, Alex Jones can do very well when he stays on topic and is like a rolodex of damning 9/11 facts and Steven Jones has rock solid evidence and if given the time to explain it is extremely damning and will drive the average viewer to reevaluate 9/11. but will The History Channel put things in the proper context or cherry pick? again i think its pretty obvious based on their history. and no offense to the Loose Change guys, but they are not the best presenters and leave certain things out.

More wailing and gnashing of teeth over at the Looser Board.

A Particularly Easy One

But I'm in the mood for a slamdunk right now. Sheila Samples writes a bit on the crackpottery and is clearly too willing to listen to the Deniers:

The day began with CNN's Wolf Blitzer frantically reporting that planes had smashed into Buildings 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center. They stood there, so tall that the smoke billowing from their upper floors could be seen for 20 miles. The scene was shocking, grisly, and the horror was broken only by the further news that a plane had rammed into the Pentagon. Death and destruction everywhere. Happening now -- right before our eyes.

In an amazing "Breaking News" alert, CNN Pentagon reporter Jamie McEntyre shot down Blitzer's "plane hit the Pentagon" report. McEntyre said flatly, "Although it may appear that way, from my close-up inspection, there is NO evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only pieces left are small enough you can pick them up in your hand. There are no pieces lying around that would indicate a plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon."

James B covered this over a year ago, but there's a truther born every minute, so we have to go over the same ground endlessly. What else did Jamie McIntyre (correct spelling) say prior to that quote?

I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

McIntyre is rather annoyed with the way the Deniers use his quote, as he discusses here:

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon.

Back to Samples:

Anyone who had ever seen one -- even one -- controlled demolition knew without a doubt what he had just witnessed. But no time for that -- yet another plane had rammed into a Pennsylvania field with such force there was just a smoking pit at the site with the debris scattered over an eight-mile area...

You know, I'd guess that almost everybody in America has seen one controlled demolition, and only the kooks think what happened with the Twin Towers resembled it.

But wait! Don't ask! Still happening now! We're treated to yet another controlled demolition display when WTC 7, struck by no plane, inexplicably collapsed in exactly the same fashion as the first two buildings.

So inexplicable that all the firemen knew the building was coming down. Oh, wait, I forgot, they're in on it too!

Within hours, CNN had pinned this four-pronged attack on our "homeland" on Saudi billionnaire and former CIA operative Osama Bin Laden, and was parading the photographs of 19 terrorists -- 15 from Saudi Arabia -- non-stop across our TV screens. Never mind that in the ensuing weeks, most of them were found alive and well and minding their own business in various parts of the world.

It. Never. Ends. If I give this up some day, it will be because somebody has claimed for the 10 billionth time that the hijackers are still alive. What a freaking retard!

Hilariously she goes on to report McIntyre's comment about the kooks. But it's okay, because:

It wasn't long until McEntyre, his feet back on the ground and marching orders in hand, responded to Blitzer's question about his earlier comments -- "Web sites often take statements out of context, such as the exchange from CNN, in which I, myself appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building. In fact, Wolf," McEntyre continued, while rapidly pulling my trigger, "I was answering a question about an eyewitness account that a plane had crashed short of the Pentagon, and I was making the point that, no, not near the Pentagon. The only plane that crashed was at the Pentagon."

Moron. Nitwit. It wasn't long? McIntyre said those words four and a half freaking years later, you buffoon! There's more, but it's completely demented.

Attention, Kook-Mart Shoppers

A 9-11 Denier puts the PA system in a couple British supermarkets to creative use. Cellphone video so it's pretty low quality.



Part II:



I hate these Denier Dedications; they are completely phony. Note as well that we're dealing with the typical youth "Truthers"; 18-22, probably no job....

Judean People's Front Back Online

Aka 9-11 Researchers. And to say that John Albanese is disliked over there would be putting it mildly.

In other news, a Muslim Truther disrupted a speech by Hillary Clinton the other day, apparently holding up a Koran with the words "Truth" written on it, and shouting like a madman. Unfortunately for him, about all he accomplished was to generate sympathy for the senator.

The Three Prettiest Truthers Ever?

For a movement that seems squarely aimed at young males of below-normal intelligence, the 9-11 Truthers have always lacked the "babe" factor, what with Carol Brouillet and Gypsy Taub supplying the sex appeal.

My guess is that they belong to the Mark Dice cult. But I'll admit it's more interesting keeping an eye on these "Truthers".

Sock Puppet Warning

Some of our readers are better at catching this than I am, but we are starting to get some sock puppets in the comments section. Sock puppets are different names used by one commenter to make it seem like there are a bunch of people expressing similar thoughts. Of course, the problem is that Haloscan logs your IP addy, so you're only fooling yourself. Some socks:



Fair warning; we will ban people from the comments for using sock puppets.

Gutfeld: Truthers Must Die!

I'm not sure I'm doing him any favors, but I've always enjoyed Greg Gutfeld's sense of humor and today he took on our favorite set of nutbars (you may have to scroll down a bit; I can't seem to find real permalinks over there):

The truth about conspiracies is that they aren't any. If you can't prevent office gossip, how can you assume a a government can keep a secret? Human beings are natural blabbermouths. By the way, Harry Potter dies.

The best way to crush a theorist is to tell them that the real conspiracy is the plan to make people LIKE THEM fall for conspiracies. So when someone says that 9/11 was an inside job, I reply, "well, that's what the Jews want you to think," and walk away. But, truthers are as scummy as Holocaust deniers. People who embrace conspiracies are inherently destructive, because it prevents them from focusing on stuff that really matters: like terrorism or my birthday party (which is coming up by the way).

Happy Birthday, Greg!

Lord Save Us From Fans of the Matrix

Don't take the red pill, Neo! Another 9-11 kook is converted every day; here's one who first "woke up" a couple of months ago:

It makes sense, even to a non-engineer like myself, that if we are to believe the official "fire" theory, we would be forced to imagine that the steel be required to weaken under severe, and very long-lasting exposure to a heat source of incredible magnitude, to effect (sic) the entire steel frame, with all its heat dissipating potential over such a voluminous area of metal. That steel would get so extremely hot, that it would bend, buckle and sway in a non-symmetrical fashion. Instead, it broke into distinct sections - along with everything else being pulverized - and fell straight down into its own footprint. Add to this the many documented eye-witness testimonies of massive explosions occurring in the substructures and other floors, which could only account for the rivers and pools of molten metal found weeks after the event.

As you can see, his thought processes are still a little sluggish on exactly what he supposedly believes. How exactly do explosions result in rivers and pools of molten metal found weeks after the event? Explosions are not a major source of heat; it would require incendiaries (or, you know, flammable material).

The heat sink argument ("heat dissipating") is so ridiculous that I am constantly amazed that Deniers bother with it. Here is a piece of steel that is being heated:



Peter no doubt expects that piece of steel to quickly equalize the heat, but it does not, because steel is a relatively poor conductor of heat.

He certainly does not lack confidence in his own brilliance:

Simply by using our Einstein-like thought experiments, along with physical evidence and eye-witness testimonies, and sometimes relying on critical thinking alone, we can say with utter certainty that these buildings were imploded.

Imagine those idiots at NIST, thinking they needed a team of structural engineers, when all it took was a few "thought experiments" (granted, "Einstein-like") to prove controlled demolition.

Fortunately, their Einsteins have come forward:

Let's go to court. We've got the likes of Griffin, Ryan, Fetzer, Jones, and countless others who have the expertise and moral integrity on our team.

Reading from left to right, a theology professor, a water tester, a philosophy professor, and a former physics professor.

Moron Peter Zaza's 9-11 nitwittery here. He buys into every crank theory that the kooks push, including FEMA Death Camps, the North American Union, the faked moon landing and the centuries-old plot for the New World Order.

David Ray Griffin's Earlier Writing

I suspect that most people looking at Griffin's 9-11 books have been disinclined to take a look at his earlier works, since he is generally described as a theologian. However, I found that the Phoenix Public Library offers online access to some of his earlier books and at least one of them is rather interesting.

In 1997, Griffin published a book entitled, Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration. I've read a little bit of it online and it absolutely fits in perfectly with Griffin's 9-11 nuttiness, and marks him as a kook of the Barbara Honegger school.

In the book, Griffin makes some pretty wild claims for parapsychology, saying that a new type of experiment known as a Ganzfeld in conjunction with meta-level analysis has shown that Psi powers do exist. (Discussion here). Griffin leaps off from there to anecdotal evidence in favor of just about every kooky parapsychology claim, from life after death (Griffin in a memorable bit of quackery on page 151 estimates the odds of it happening at 50/50) to mediums, to possession to reincarnation (Shirley MacLaine was right!) to apparitions to out of body experiences.

More important than the crackpottery, which we've come to expect from the Guru of the 9-11 Denial Movement, is the similarity of the arguments. In his recent Vancouver lecture, Griffin harped on the fact that a lot of "respectable" people are part of the 9-11 Truthers, citing in particular Bishop Bob Bowman, Andreas Von Bulow, and (believe it or not) the inmates at Pilots for 9-11 Truth. So it is with his parapsychology book. Why look, a bunch of people like the former professor of moral philosophy at Trinity College in the 1800s believed in parapsychology!

As Griffin rails about a priori rejections of the 9-11 tinfoil hat crowd now, in 1997 he was bemoaning the a priori debunkings of psychic loonies. Indeed, substitute his bitter complaints about CSICOP (a parapsychology debunking group) for Popular Mechanics and you'd just about have the equivalent of Debunking 9-11 Debunking. James Randi even comes in for a bit of bashing!

You can see selected excerpts of the text online at Google Books.

We're going to be doing quite a few posts on DRG in the next couple days; stay tuned!

Cognitive Dissonance at 9-11 Blogger?

After months of hearing the 9-11 Deniers like Jason Bermas and Alex Jones tell us their favorite candidate is Ron Paul, it's kind of amusing to see the disjointed reactions now that Paul is getting blasted by Michelle Malkin, Fox News and others as a 9-11 Truther.

Well, the folks at 9-11 Blogger cannot decide on what position to take on this. Do they embrace the description?

Ron Paul is attacked because he has supported 9/11 Truth.

Do they defend him from the vile canard that he is a Truther?

They have managed to skew Ron Paul's debate comments and connect them to a story about 9/11 Truth so they can attack them both at once.

Paul's comments were offensive, but probably did not rise to the level of Trutherism. But he is certainly the darling of many of the Deniers, and his comments earlier about the 9-11 Commission being a coverup and calling for a new investigation make him certainly a borderline 9-11 Denier.

Newly Noted: 9-11 Clowns

Here's an interesting site for poking fun at the 9-11 Doofuses. Check out the current "Clown of the Day", Leland Lehrman, a grandson of one of the founders of Time, Inc., and a great grandson of a Skull & Bonesman.

Leland Lehrman's close ties to Hoffman and Hufschmid come along with a crusade against Jews with support shown here to bring the whole race, or cult, to task for the crimes of the few. Leland Lehrman has joined the Jew Baiters society and wrote a “compelling” paper called “The Absolute Best Authentications Of The Protocols Of Zion.” Those of you who wish to get a good laugh at a 911 Clown check it out.

I am unsure if the writer is a legitimate debunker, or just a believer in one of the many other factions of 9-11 Denial. He uses the term "butter brain" which is a favorite of our old buddy Nico Haupt, and this causes some concern:

Leland Lehrman is also claimed to be one of the leaders of the political forces in New Mexico pushing the limited hangout conspiricist Kucinich for national office to bring 'Butter Brains' mainstream.

Still, an entertaining site.

The Anti-Semitic Abbott And Costello of 9-11 Truth

Lots of profanity here.







This pair is pretty dumb even for Deniers.

So Much for That 84%

Rasmussen polling did a little survey, and found that 22% of Americans believe that Bush knew about the 9-11 attacks beforehand.

Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. (Young) Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.

Note that the 22% presumably includes both LIHOP and MIHOP kooks and may also include some Americans who felt the administration had ample warning of the attacks but failed to stop them because of incompetence.

Of course, it's not hard to see how innumerate dolts like Alex Jones will misinterpret this:

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.