Wow. If you were at all familiar with my postings at JREF, you'd know that I often lament how simple-minded the so-called "debunkers" are. (It's fair to say that that's true of some truthers, also.) If you don't believe this, you can search for threads that I posted in, e.g., concerning the failure/corruption of the media. That was a particularly rich mother lode of postings where we can see, time after time, "debunkers" assuming that either we have, as options, "everybody in on it" (meaning reporters) or can't be true.
This idiotic tendency to simplify, and overlook plausible possibilities that, in a suitably translated situation, 10-year-olds could figure out (having observed Saturday morning cartoon plot lines since the age of 6, wherein betrayal and subterfuge are portrayed and understood), is the provenance of hostile debunkers. (OK, some hostile debunkers.) As a propaganda technique, it's useful (at least when targeting the shallow of mind), because it allows for the easy generation of strawmen. As a means for the shallow of mind to satisfy their desire to argue, and constrained by their abortive thought processes, so that they can believe that they have (once again) won an argument, it is also useful. Like other emotional argumentation (say concerning politics and religion), the "winner" of an argument is usually a foregone conclusion. Both sides win - in their own minds.
Not only have I never claimed that, e.g., "ISI means CIA", I doubt that most other 911 truthers believe that, either.
If some faction of the ISI cooperates with some faction of the CIA, in the end perpetrating what amounts to treason against the United States (on the part of the CIA members, I mean), it would be wrong not to have pursued that line of inquiry.
If some faction of the ISI cooperates with some faction of the CIA, in the end realizing that they have gotten played by a Bin Laden that they were cooperating with just yesterday, to de-stabilize China, it would be wrong not to have pursued that line of inquiry.
Whether or not that Bin Laden and his associates were protected by a rogue faction of Saudi intelligence, by Saudi intelligence at the highest level, or not protected by Saudi intelligence, at all.
How's that for complexity, progge? Shall I count the permutations I've laid out above, or shall you?
Now, figuring which permutation, of all the permuations, not just those laid out above, is closest to the truth is not something that is going to happen on an internet forum. Not with any finality. Figuring it out in a way that honors the American public, whether or not a whole bunch of American spooks get identified at traitors or just saps, is something that will require state power.
Quite a problem when the suspects of many of those permuations are state actors! But don't tell the debunkers that! You'll be wasting your breath, even though their 10-year-old children could have pointed it out to them.
Hence, as annoying as the "911 was an inside job" mantra may be, the companion meme of calling for a serious re-investigation is not only not annoying, it is essential to get to the bottom of things. Not likely to happen, but that is another matter.
Last edited:
