It’s time to face the cancer growing in the 9/11 Truth movement

By Craig McKee (http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com)

In the 9/11 Truth movement, it seems nothing can be taken at face value. People who say they are part of the movement launch vicious attacks against others they should have common ground with. It’s over the top, and I don’t buy it.

Debate in the 9/11 Truth movement has gone well beyond being spirited – and even contentious. It’s now mean-spirited and destructive. There are clearly people who say they’re fighting for the cause who appear to have no interest in finding the truth. They are only concerned, it appears, with ripping the movement apart.

The question is whether genuine, sincere, and serious people are going to let it happen.

These individuals seem to focus their rage (real or contrived) on the work of Citizen Investigation Team (Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis). They’ll also go animal on anyone who shows any openness to CIT’s position. This group attacks CIT and its supporters with such obsessive regularity that I no longer accept the sincerity of what they’re saying.

That is not to say you can’t criticize CIT and its research. Of course, their conclusions can be, and should be, scrutinized. But it seems to me that most of the attacks are not refutations of the research; they are vicious ad hominem attacks that don’t ring true.

CIT’s position is basically that witnesses they have interviewed confirm that the airliner that approached the Pentagon flew on the north side of the Citgo gas station, making it impossible for it to hit the five downed light poles. They believe that this makes the official story crumble. They cite the C ring hole in the Pentagon (which depends on the official “south of Citgo” path). They also cite light poles that would have been in the way had the plane hit the building on a north of Citgo path. They conclude that explosives must have been planted in the building and that the plane must have flown over the building and not into it.

The anti-CIT gang claim to believe that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. But for some bizarre reason they think that the official story is right on the money as it applies to the Pentagon. That’s really odd. And if you don’t agree with them, be prepared to be attacked personally. Anyone new to the movement is only welcomed if they have the “right” opinion. If you don’t, look out.

We’re told that CIT is divisive, that its members are liars. They supposedly run from debates all over the place. It is suggested by these “truthers” that Ranke and Marquis don’t care who they step on to make their claims. Witnesses like Lloyde England and Mike Walter seem to be of more concern to CIT’s  critics than the victims of the 9/11 “attacks”. They go on and on about how improper it was to be tough on England when he was good enough to let Ranke and Marquis into his home. Oh brother.

Apparently, you can’t question the credibility of any witness account. This, the CIT-haters claim, is terribly unfair to the witness no matter how ridiculous their account might be. This is especially true if the person is likable, non-threatening and elderly as in the case of Mr. England.

So how do the CIT-haters justify their incessant attacks on the group? They claim that CIT’s conclusions are so “loony” that they will subject the movement to ridicule. These individuals seem to behave as if CIT and its views are a cancer that must be cut out. And they’re willing to go to any lengths to do this, no matter how much this in itself might damage the cause.

I believe there is indeed a cancer to be excised, but it exists in the form of the rabid CIT-haters who will happily destroy the movement from within rather than get on to another topic.

Here are a few examples – out of context to be sure – of the kind of discourse I’m talking about. These are from SnowCrash (real name Michiel de Boer) from the forum 911oz.net. There’s more like it on the largest 9/11 site, 9/11Blogger. And there are several venomous commentators who echo Mr. Crash as if they were small dogs at his side waiting for a treat. Over to you, Mr. Crash:

• Hey genius, planes flew into buildings on 9-11. Some folks have a vested self interest in not admitting that. Aint figured that out yet huh sherlock? But I think you like being conned.
• Let’s take this real slowly, P4T errand boy, since you have reading comprehension problems.
• Do you get it now, idiot?
• I know that, you godawful idiot, I cited the article.
• You don’t need an X-ray vision machine, you need a brain transplant.
• There is no wiggle room for liars, sorry. Not only did the plane not ‘fly over’, it was a 757.
• Nah, you’re a liar (Like Craig the paparazzo) who defends other lying liars.
• If I were to imagine the Pentagon liar crowd as a pyramid, critters like you dwell at the very bottom. You’re doing the legwork for the mountebanks up top.
• There is no room for liars in this movement. We’re going to clean up these lies and deal with it ourselves. I’ll be damned if debunkers do it for us.
• No, as a tabloid hack, you’re supposed to cast aspersions on people. And you’re doing a heckuva job there, Craig. Just what this movement needs. More outrageously false gossip from quacks.
• You are a shameless, disgusting liar, who refuses to rectify his lies.
• We’ve now established you lie intentionally.
• I will rectify something though: you’re not amiable. You’re a lying weasel, in fact.
• You’re another propaganda amplifier for CIT. Make pleas for ‘respect’ all you want. You don’t respect Mike Walter and Lloyd England, or what they’ve seen and been through. You label them (implicitly or explicitly) accomplices to mass murder. You label them agents. Don’t lecture about respect and rationality.
• You’re not part of this movement, and neither is CIT.
• You can’t even go one comment without quoting out of context, lying, or defending liars.
• I have to admit, I didn’t quite trust you from the start.

If this guy thinks I’m a quack, I take that as a complement. When he starts agreeing with me I’ll get worried.

Mr. SnowCrash actually has the gall to say I’m “not part of this movement, and neither is CIT.” The sheer arrogance of this… geez, I almost called him an idiot. Don’t want to stoop to his level.

Actually I don’t think he’s an idiot; I think he knows exactly what he’s doing.