Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Fighting Ghosts

That's what all 9-11 Denial Debunkers must feel like they're doing. Here's an article at From the Wilderness, which shows one of the problems Debunkers face:

Weinberg was brave enough to invoke the name that others now steer clear of, but he did not seriously challenge our case at all. Instead he focuses on minor disputes that he had with FTW’s Oh Lucy! timeline four years ago. These points are not in anyway central to the case against Dick Cheney as laid out in Crossing the Rubicon.


And:

Instead he uses Alex Jones’ extremely flawed and inaccurate analysis of the 9/11 war games as a straw man, easily knocked down. It is simple to win a debate on fact checking against Alex Jones, (Prison Planet) who has continually co-opted FTW’s investigation into these matters without ever mentioning our work or representing it accurately.


Inevitably, if you debunk some aspect of 9-11 Denial, the Deniers immediately swarm around and say "Oh, that was easy. Debunk this," and point to some other aspect of 9-11 Denial. For example suppose you deconstruct the "missile at the Pentagon" theory. I guarantee the response will be "no real 9-11 researchers believe that a missile hit the Pentagon". Not of course from Dylan and his ilk, but from another wing of the 9-11 Denial Movement.

THE PENTAGON, in which PM attacks the claim of conspiracy advocates that the Pentagon was hit by an object other than a jetliner, while hiding the position of respected 9/11 Truth activists that this claim is a hoax.


Because there are 1,001 different conspiracy theories on 9-11, no matter what you debunk, somebody will claim that's a marginal position that no "respected" 9-11 activists believe.

This is one of the reasons why I try to keep track of what particular 9-11 Deniers say. There is no sense in debunking the "no-planes" theories if you're debating Alex Jones, and no sense debunking missile at the Pentagon if you're dueling with Jim Hoffman.

8 Comments:

At 10 October, 2006 09:04, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I agree. An organized list of who says/said what and when would be a great idea, that you could then bring up when ever discussing it. If you have one I would love ot have access. If not, I think I might start to catalogue the claims of each group, and when they claimed them, and if they have or have not changed their views on them.

TAM

 
At 10 October, 2006 10:26, Blogger CHF said...

What's especially ridiculous is the fact that after a CTer disowns a certain theory ("no one believes the Pentagon missile theory...") they'll later use that very theory once they have a fresh audience!

 
At 10 October, 2006 11:22, Blogger Triterope said...

I disagree. I don't think it's our responsibility to document the ever-changing lunacy of the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. The fact that there are 1,001 different conspiracy theories ought to be the strongest argument against the lot of them. "Two men say they're Jesus..."

They say they're "just asking questions." Well, we can only answer the questions we're asked. All we can do is address issues as each individual Denier raises them, and not allow the Denier to change the subject when cornered.

 
At 10 October, 2006 14:47, Blogger Pat said...

TAM, I have done a little work on this at a blog called Conspirazoids. It's mostly a way for me to keep track of the various people in the 9-11 Denial Movement.

Let me know if you would like posting priveleges over there.

 
At 10 October, 2006 14:56, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

pat:

Looks like a good start. I would be honored to have posting priveleges sir. I assume we can add to the existing truthers, as we collect more of their individual stances on a given 9/11 topic? Set me up, and I'll begin, though it will take me a while to collect.

Trite:

My point was that I would like to have such a list, at my finger tips, so that when we get into debates or what not with them, or someone referring to them, I can pull out what they believe, and use it against them if they try to say otherwise. As well, it will give me an area to hone in on when debating with a given CTer.

TAM

 
At 10 October, 2006 15:06, Blogger shawn said...

Holocaust deniers do the same thing.

You'll point out one guy saying there were no gas chambers, and debunk that point - but another one will come along and say "well of course, that's ludicrous" and then bring up something else you have to debunk.

("no one believes the Pentagon missile theory...")

I so do love that attitude as well. Before there was ever a concerted effort to destroy the ridiculous beliefs of these folks they clung to every little thing, and peel away like an onion all the less savory aspects of the conspiracy mythos.

 
At 10 October, 2006 18:54, Blogger telescopemerc said...

It was fun when this blog started, and all the wooies came in and said "Loose Change is just kids stuff, you've got to pay attention to the serious ones: The Scholars for 911 truth!'

So after multiple reports of Fetzer's babbling nonsense, Jones' inept and imaginary physics, Wood infamous Keebler elf tree theory, more and more Fetzer blabbing nonsense and crapping on the graves of the dead, what is it that we hear?

"You guys pay too much attention to those guys...they don't really represent the TROOTH movement, you should pay attention to..."

 
At 10 October, 2006 22:09, Blogger Pat said...

TAM, send me an email at the addy listed up top on SLC and I'll invite you to the blog.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home