I have noticed that there is a sustained vilification of the "911 Truth movement" by association with far right politics on here (if such a thing exists then I don't consider myself to be a member of it?).
I don't believe that those carrying out the attacks have many noble motives other than to attack the "Truth movement" by association with a vile and disgusting genocide that occurred over 60 years ago.
Look at it this way: There is scientific proof and there is legal proof. Scientific proof involves forming a hypothesis, testing it and discarding or changing it if it doesn't work. When evaluating the "truth" movement, scientific proof becomes problematic because ... well, they have none. Few if any in the "truth" camp have a working hypothesis of exactly what happened that day, how it was set up and who did it. Certainly, they cannot be debunked because they offer nothing but scattered accusations. Occasionally, they might raise a physics question which is then carefully explained to them. However, whatever the explanation was, they discard it and insist that the official theory is somehow wrong without providing a counter-theory.
Scientific proof not being applicable to the "truth" movement (because they have nothing to test and discard any scientific explanations anyway), we move on to legal proof.
In law, we understand that many human events are too complicated to ever fully know what "really" happened. Individual memories, biases, abilities to understand at the time and abilities to communicate at present are all variable. Two witnesses to a mugging often remember two different version of events. In law, we cannot scientifically test which person is truthful. We can, however, probe which people might have problems understanding evidence because of mental defect or interpreting that evidence because of bias. So, it becomes a fair question to ask what bias an individual has when he presents his story.
The "truth" movement does this for those who recite the official story. Members of this forum cannot count the times they are called "shills" or "plants" or "government agents." Their motives for supporting the official story are always suspect by those in the "truth" movement.
Likewise, we may look at the "truth" movement to uncover their motives. What we find is that a significant number of those who identify themselves as "truthers" were previously (before 9/11) members of anti-semitic, white pride, or Holocaust denial groups - groups like Stormfront or Vanguard. And many of those people blame the Jews (or blame the Jews with the code word "Zionists") for 9/11. Now, when a person is accused of a crime (as I have been because I am both a Jew and a Zionist), it is fair to ask whether his accuser has a pre-existing bias. My accusers do. They have no evidence to debunk, all they have is their word. Thus, it is fair to question whether they have any reason for lying.
It turns out that they do have a reason for lying. They hate me because of my religion. Without any other evidence, even their allegations must be dismissed. They have too much of a desire to lie.
How much freedom of speech do you really want?
All of it. As has been pointed out, limiting freedom of speech was a Nazi tactic. It's pretty ironic to ask that we limit our freedom of speech to protect people from being accused of belonging to a group that wants to limit our freedom of speech.
Do you find it acceptable to be Politicking with genocide?
I politic by explaining that a person's actions in the past are indicitive of likely actions in the future. If one has once been an anti-semite, it is likely that one's views on all issues are bathed in anti-semitism.
