CIT: Who cares?

I've written several posts in the past over the flawed "evidence" that CIT displays. There was a time when I could debate the CIT evidence for days on end before seeing that their cult-like nature blinds them from things like "science", "corroboration", "Occam's Razor", and all the while using double-standards to convince themselves that they are right.

Who cares?

At this point, the futility of trying to argue with a zealot prevents me from staying in these fruitless arguments for much longer than a couple responses. They're a distraction. A pure, non-fulfilling distraction that can't do anything for the truth movement.

You want to know why? Here's how flawed the CIT evidence is: CIT could be RIGHT and they still wouldn't be able to help the movement. That's right, let's say that CIT is right. About EVERYTHING. The physical evidence was faked. The DNA was faked. The south path witnesses are wrong and the selected testimony from the north path witnesses are right. In contradiction to all science, CIT has reached the true conclusion. But it's not valid! The fact that it's not scientific, the fact that CIT expects people to ignore the inaccurate testimony in favor of testimony purported to be accurate means that it would never fly in a court room.

If a witness places a taxi cab incorrectly, then his testimony is flawed. AND HE IS UNRELIABLE. If a witness says he saw an impact, and your theory involves the plane FLYING OVER the building, then he must be WRONG! About SOMETHING! This means that he is UNRELIABLE. You can't just say insist that some parts are right and some parts are wrong. No judge would take that case. Even if 9/11 Truth wasn't a controversial issue, no judge would consider this evidence. The case would be thrown out faster than you can say "logical fallacies".

So even if CIT is right, their conclusions are not supported by valid evidence. It is composed entirely of cherry-picking. Everything that opposes their selected testimony is faked or invalid, yet in no way infringes upon the credibility of their witnesses. It is depressing that there are so many people who look at this evidence and take it seriously.

Hey, I understand. I've been there. I've mentioned before that when I started in the movement, I was on something of a "high". It became very difficult to filter the legitimate from the dubious. But I've always, under all circumstances, maintained an open mind to alternate ideas, and so I was able, eventually, to evaluate the evidence critically, until I realized it was non-scientific bogus that held no place in a movement seeking truth. Which is the problem. Pride has taken priority over truth. An inability to accept that mistakes were made and conclusions were drawn prematurely has led to CIT's continuing promotion and made it difficult, if even possible, to show their followers that they've been duped. Whereas I have made it a priority in my life to refrain from emotional attachment to any beliefs I hold, CIT, as well as other groups within the movement, have put themselves ahead of the truth they claim to seek.

CIT continues to distract and detract, promoting fallacies and flawed evidence that won't get the movement anywhere. Yet somehow they have followers. Well, fine. CIT and their followers have made it abundantly clear that they're not interested in anything that opposes their theory. So all we can really hope to do is prevent well-meaning people from being sucked into the hype. No more pointless debates, no more wasted time, no more trying to make sense with these people. Let's shift our target audience to people who are not yet exposed. People still trying to make sense of everything. Let's appeal to people who can still be drawn towards critical thinking. All that these CIT debates have accomplished is promotion for CIT. CIT has done nothing for us. Why should we do anything for them?

9/11 truthers are anti-government?

A while ago, I read this article which somebody had posted on TruthAction. The author, David Swindle, makes a list of how the "Conspiracist Crackpot" mentality works. It was a pretty absurd and generalizing list that for the most part I could laugh at and ignore. There was one point that caught my eye, however, to which I am responding now.

"Conspiracist Crackpots are oblivious to the fact that their conspiracy of choice tends to relate directly to their political views. Not only that but their embrace of the conspiracy actually flows out of their political ideology. Every single Birther is opposed to Barack Obama on policy grounds. Truthers who think 9/11 was an “inside job” done by the government are almost always politically opposed to the government. Leftist Truthers hate America and Right-wing Truthers hate the federal government. Holocaust deniers hate Jews. Afrocentric leftists who think the government engineered AIDS and crack also think America is fundamentally racist. You can do this with virtually every conspiracy."

There is a degree of validity to the statement. A lot of the examples he gives are valid. But I just can't agree with Swindle that all truthers are opposed to the government. First and foremost, and I just have to get this out of the way, since when do leftist truthers hate America? What on Earth makes him think he can make such a broad sweeping generalization like that? It's so astoundingly unprofressional.

But let's look at the overall claim. "9/11 Truthers are politically opposed to the government". Mr. Swindle seems to have a difficult time understanding that a distrust of the government - or certain figures in the government - something that IS fairly common among truthers, is not the same thing as being politically opposed to it's foundation. In fact, it is the love of the ideals which founded this country that is such a strong motivator for many among the movement. What Swindle is talking about is something close to anarchy. While I'm sure there are some in the movement who follow such extreme beliefs, it is most certainly not prevalent.

Of course, you can be politically opposed to the government without being an anarchist. A lot of democrats opposed the Bush administration. A lot of republicans oppose the current Obama administration. But Swindle himself makes the tacit admission that the political spectrum is a broad one among 9/11 Truthers. He refers to both "Leftist Truthers" and "Right-wing Truthers". Indeed, from what I've read of, for example, Julian of TruthMove, he is a fairly liberal person, whereas you take someone like me who leans conservatively. Left, right, in-between, you'll find pretty much any position on the spectrum if you bother to look. Since this is admitted EVEN by David Swindle, this could not possibly be what he is talking about.

Of course, many truthers disapprove of both Obama and Bush. Is this because of their ant-government tendencies which Swindle alleges? No, it seems that the distrust and dislike stems from elsewhere, as many 9/11 Truthers have supported other politicians in hopes of having said candidate elected. Cynthia McKinney and Ron Paul are such examples of politicians who truthers HAVE shown support for, thereby showing some amount of respect for the system. Two candidates who, by the way, have very different ideas on how the country should be run.

Some would point out that McKinney believes the government had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and thus would attract the likes of 9/11 Truthers. But that would be missing the point. What attracts truthers to her would not be the position she holds, but the honesty she presents in publicly announcing something so controversial. But even if this was not the case, this is no different from pro-lifers favoring towards politicians who are heavily pro-life, or people opposed to higher taxes straying away from politicians saying they'll raise taxes. It is a position on which people are passionate about, and it is no different from any other group favoring towards someone who agrees with them. Ron Paul, meanwhile, stated numerous times that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, despite many of his followers being truthers. This drew him a great deal of criticism from the movement. He still received a large number of votes. This would seem to contradict the belief that our support of politicians is based primarily on 9/11 Truth.

If he is not talking about a political opposition based on the political spectrum, then he must be referring to an opposition towards the FOUNDATION of government, which is either anarchy or a proposal for a completely different type of government, neither of which is prevalent among the movement. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. Truthers show a tendency towards preserving the foundation of government.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Swindle is right. That almost all truthers are anti-government. Does this prove the correlation he claims? No. Why? Because there are many people who are anti-government who do NOT believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Many members of my own family, who for the most part are significantly more liberal than I am, have also been critical of the Obama administration. Yet, they do not, or at least have not bothered to announce as such, believe 9/11 was an inside job. At the very least, they stray away from the issue. Similarly, I know several people who would declare themselves anarchists, communists, and the like who have remained unconvinced that 9/11 was an inside job. People who at their core are opposed to the foundations of this country who believe the official story. If Swindle's proposed correlation was that 9/11 truth attracts anti-government people, then why are there many anti-government people out there who do NOT address the issue?

9/11 Truthers are not opposed to the government. We are opposed to what the government has turned into. We are opposed to what the government and its frontmen have committed. We are opposed to how the government has treated civil liberties, habeus corpus, right to privacy, and other rights which have been all but annihilated in the wake of 9/11.

We are NOT opposed to this country's foundations.

Who's the real skeptic?

I rarely write such opinionated pieces, but this subject has been on my mind.

I find it interesting in how alike truthers and debunkers tend to be in their way of thinking. I hate to say that, but the psychology is remarkably similar. In particular, I find both often believe themselves to be skeptics. Truthers say they're skeptics because of their doubts about the official story whereas debunkers are skeptical towards conspiracy theories. I can't help but wonder how two groups who define themselves as skeptics can come to two entirely different conclusions.

What is a skeptic, really? A skeptic is not, as some on both sides seem to think, somebody who tries to disprove things. On the contrary, a true skeptic tries to believe things that he or she would otherwise find extraordinary or absurd. If someone is aiming to prove something then they're not looking at it objectively, which implies an agenda of some sort. Thus a skeptic, to be objective, must try to convince himself of something he has trouble believing. Only then can you adequately analyze the foundation of such an issue.

So who's the skeptic? The truthers or the debunkers? Well, I'd like to give an answer, but I really can't say I know. On one hand, I do my best to look at things objectively and I keep my mind open to things I'd otherwise find absurd. But on the other hand, how do I know I'm really objective? Maybe something subconscious in me is slanting me in one direction, a mental bias I can't be sure I'm controlling. Can anyone really know if they're skeptics? Any one of us are likely to be biased in one direction for whatever reason that may be affecting our decision-making deduction-drawing. Really, I'd love to say that the truthers are skeptics and the debunkers are simply delusional, but as I AM trying to be objective and all, I have to say that I don't think anyone is really capable of knowing that about themselves.

I entertain ideas all the time. I even take the time to read this no-plane and DEW crap because I can't help but think to myself "Hey, maybe this time they'll actually provide something substantial". A stone-cold atheist, I will even consider every now and then the existence of some deity, whether said deity be of any known religion or not, for the purpose of finding some kind of plausibility in the idea. I always fail to convince myself, but repeatedly I will wonder if I'm wrong in my viewpoint.

I think I am a skeptic. I'd definitely like to think I'm a skeptic. I'd like to think this very article, which implicitly gives debunkers possible legitimacy, solidifies me as someone who is able to look at both sides rationally. But as I'm only human and we're very good at self-deception, I can't be sure. I think it's perfectly plausible that debunkers, or at least some of them, are also skeptical, and the difference in our opinions is the result of intellectual differences as opposed to psychological ones. For that matter, it's also possible that neither truthers nor debunkers are skeptical, and we're all just following an inherent bias that's distorting our opinions.

Comment your thoughts.

Controlled Demolition in activism

One of the most widespread issues in the movement is the controlled demolition hypothesis: that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings, including WTC7. This position is endorsed by the majority of the movement. Some raise the issue, however, of how effective it is as a promotional tool. Before I even begin to address this, I'm going to clarify a few things.

A) I endorse the controlled demolition hypothesis

B) I view difference between what works in street action and what works in other venues, such as film, which is why this essay will primarily refer to controlled demolition in street action and why controlled demolition will remain a point in 9/11 Anomaly.

Now having said that, I tend to agree that promoting ourselves through factual evidence, documented evidence, and all-in-all non-debateable evidence is better than promoting ourselves through something less conclusive like controlled demolition.

Compelling as it may be, the controlled demolition hypothesis is still just a hypothesis. It cannot, scientifically, be deemed proved. There is a vast difference between evidence and proof, and proof could only be feasibly and legally obtained via a new investigation for the proper clearance.

On the other hand, we have information at our disposal that is completely out of the realm of dispute. The failure to defend the skies, people responsible for said failure being promoted, NORAD giving 3 contradictory accounts of what happened that day, etc... the list goes on. This is more than enough for a new investigation, as the 9/11 Commission did not look into such things. But instead, we bullhorn that the towers blew up when none of us know 100% what happened that day. Anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.

More importantly, controlled demolition has been used to demonize us. The media has turned the issue into another nutjob belief like "no-planes" by associating it with such theories and not with the adequate supporting evidence. We are mocked by the extraordinary theory itself before we have a chance to validate it. At the very least, we should open up wth the fctual evidence that appeals to common sense before he mention of something that people are more likely to have an instnt negative reaction towards. Back when I lived in Washington, I often would talk about controlled demolition on the street and had trouble getting people interested. Later on, I started discussing the documented and indisputable evidence, and found that I had much more success in this way. Not only that, but when I talked about controlled demolition AFTER mentioning the solid facts, they were much more open to it. Since then, I have continued with this form of street action, and have had success every time.

Furthermore, although proving controlled demolition would certainly prove government complicity, it is not necessary to prove government complicity. How they did it is not important as long as they are proven responsible. We can prove government complicity without controlled demolition, so what is the point of making it such a focus?

Although the controlled demolition hypothesis is certainly compelling and a worthwhile subject to research into, it is clear that our focus on it has been handled poorly, and consequently become detrimental to the movement. We should put more of an emphasis on the factual and documented evidence, and learn to handle controlled demolition more responsibly, as our current promotional strategy is clearly having a negative effect.

Yes, there was lawn damage!

My most frequented, linked to, and overall popular article on my blog is 9/11 Hoaxes: No plane hit the Pentagon. I find it remarkable that points I explicitly address are often used to try and counter the article by proponents of the theory that no plane struck. In particular, I've had numerous individuals ask me, "Well what about the lawn damage?"


It is at this point that I question whether or not said individual actually read the article, for I directly addressed that claim. The idea that there was no lawn damage is basically an optical illusion from photos like this:

























That chain-link fence looks much closer to the area of impact than it really is. It is, in fact, about 100 feet away from the building. What happens when we zoom in past the fence?





That is some very explicit lawn damage. Case Closed.

Why CIT witnesses do not corroborate with each other

It's so frequent among CIT debates to hear claims that the 13 witnesses "all corroborate each other". I find this incredible since some of their witnesses don't even corroborate with themselves. This was mentioned frequently in this thread at TruthAction, particularly by Stefan, that the witnesses all corroborated each. I stayed out of the argument mostly, as I find these CIT arguments so blatantly unscientific and frustrating that it's outright pointless. But this claim being repeated caused some problems for me, and I feel I need to address it.

Most frequently, the "corroboration" is in reference to the flight paths given. Stefan has noted this corroboration frequently, giving them some leeway of "a few meters". First of all, "meters" is not the proper measurement for this. All testimony has the same impact point, so this should be measured in degrees. A few "meters" could be insignificant or could make an entirely new flight path depending on where you're placing those few meters. To the left is a picture of the 13 witnesses and their flight paths.

It sure looks all bunched up together, especially seeing how far away the flight path is, but that's just the problem. Because they're all bunched up together, it's hard to look at them individually. Take the line farthest from the official flight path and the line closest to it. A careful look shows that the line closest to the official flight path is roughly the same distance away from the line furthest from the official flight path. This is hardly corroboration. They are giving very different flight paths that are simply in a certain area away from the flight path. If you were to take all the middle lines out of the picture, this would not look much like "corroboration", now would it?

The only way this would be remotely valid for corroboration would be if there were enough witnesses supporting the north-of-citgo path in that area that you could excuse further-away flight paths as outliers in a standard deviation. That would be far more than 13 witnesses. On the other hand, many more witnesses, along with physical evidence, suggest the EXACT flight path given officially. No "well maybe a little over here" or "a little over there". Just right smack dab in the same spot. Now THAT'S corroboration.

It gets worse for the witnesses, some of whom aren't even consistent with their own testimony. Take Sgt. William Lagasse and his infamous light pole testimony, who in addition to giving the wrong locations of the light poles in The Pentacon after claiming to have not seen them, had said years earlier to flyover-advocate Richard Eastman that he DID see the light poles (as well as the taxi cab, which he also misplaced).






















Stefan certainly has a very interesting idea of corroboration. Apparently, giving contradictory testimony and different flight paths strongly suggests that the witnesses gave valid accounts. On the other hand, maybe after years since the attack happened, their memories faded a bit. And maybe the official flight path is true after all and "what" or "how" it was hit is completely pointless but "why" it was hit is something that can be rationally discussed.

Maybe CIT is just a big distraction to the movement and serves no beneficial purpose.

A look behind the psuedonym

It'll be very rare that I write about non-9/11 related topics. In the earlier stages of this blog, however, it was suggested that I make a profile. I'm in the middle of a move and won't be able to write extensively on 9/11 for a while, and so I decided that I'd take the time instead to tell you a bit about myself.

My name is Kamen Fattorusso. I was born in New York, then moved to Jacksonville, FL, then Salem, MA, then Bellevue WA, and I'm now back in Jacksonville. I'm an independent filmmaker and currently working on my first major release, 9/11 Anomaly. I dropped out of high school (out of choice, not necessity or failing grades or anything). I was first introduced to 9/11 Truth on a forum called The Best Fan Page in the Universe, where someone linked to a clip of Loose Change. It was the World Trade Center scene which, while not entirely accurate in retrospect, was probably the most compelling portion of the film.

Although many in the 9/11 Truth community frown upon mainstream things like television and sports and such, I'll be the first to tell you that I watch a shitload of TV, and I've been an avid fan of the Jacksonville Jaguars since 1998. Some of my favorite tv shows are:

1. House
2. Spin City
3. Doctor Who
4. Psych
5. The Riches

Here are my favorite movies(Not including Star Wars film because that'd be nearly half the list):

1. The Crow (1994 version)
2. V For Vendetta
3. The Matrix
4. Back to the Future
5. Requiem for a Dream
6. The Birdcage
7. Rocky
8. Moulin Rouge
9. A Beautiful Mind
10. Love, Actually

What else is there to list... I suppose my favorite bands.

1. Muse
2. Nine Inch Nails
3. The Offspring
4. Kasabian
5. Concrete Blonde
6. Stereophonics
7. Klaxons
8. Trans-Siberian Orchestra
9. Daft Punk
10. Tears for Fears

And just because I've been listening to them a lot lately, I'll give an honorable mention to Kings of Leon.

Religiously, I'm an atheist. I believed in God until I was about 8 when I realized that God was a belief(I was a kid in the deep South, so people would talk about God and I'd sort of think "Oh yeah, that guy who exists"). When I realized that the existence of God was not knowledge but simply a belief, I tried to find any rational reasons to believe in God. I found none. Wow, I must have had a pretty boring childhood that I put such thought into God's existence when I was fucking 8. Oh well.

Politically, I'm very open-ended but generally find myself agreeing with libertarian philosophies, just a tad bit more conservative than moderate.

To finish this short info page about me, I'll reveal the origin of my psuedonym. I made a comment on Screw Loose Change once and some moron tried correcting me on the spelling of my name, idiotically assuming my name was based off the star, Arcturus. It is not. It was something I just made up one day and I liked it because it was an anagram of "True Scar". Okay, glad that's out of the way.

So, there's a little about me until I get settled in to write a more relevant article.

9/11 Anomaly enters post-production

My upcoming documentary, 9/11 Anomaly, is finally finished with the production phase, leaving only editing to be done. I can't quite come up with a release date at the moment but with any luck it'll be ready before August 1st.

9/11 Anomaly will feature (in no particular order):

Narration by me
The war games that took place on 9/11
The failure to intercept any of the four planes
The oddities behind the hijackers and Osama Bin Laden
Jim Hoffman via interview
A case for controlled demolition at the World Trade Center Complex
A case for government complicity in the Pentagon attack
A case for a shoot-down of Flight 93
A brief analysis of disinformation
Footage from TruthAction Ottawa's interview with David Long
Motive for the attacks

The film contained numerous other things that were touched upon but were cut out because I didn't feel they were as strongly-supported as I'd have preferred. The recent thermite paper did not make it into the script, but I intend for it to be touched upon as an extra on the DVD. Another extra I hope to have is a video version of my 9/11 Hoaxes article.

CIT - A world where facts are irrelevant

I've already written my criticism of the research behind CIT. Unfortunately, I still find myself in debates with their followers who think that just because they restate witness testimony that they've somehow proven something. It'd be fine if I could just ignore them but these people also happen to be highly aggressive. The slightest criticism and they sniff out where it is like dogs and start picking fights.

Indeed, it's been tiring at the TruthAction forums where, after a topic about 911blogger hosting a CIT video, at least 3 CIT followers have newly joined the forum to argue. Remarkably, none of the arguments are any different, only phrased differently, which really shows how ridiculously circular their logic is. Oh yeah, I try to make them understand, at the very least, why I have a problem with the lack of science and provability behind their theories. Yet I'm still seen as an enemy to them.

I think that best describes what non-CITers are thought of by CIT followers. Enemy. Not once can I recall a debate I had with a CIT follower (or, for that matter, CIT themselves) where I wasn't treated as a disinfo operative or someone with malevolent intent towards the organization. CIT has followers so blinded by ENTIRELY NON-SCIENTIFIC claims that they're literally unable to understand how anyone else can't believe as they believe. The only possibility? Well, if they're not new to the issue, then they must be agents of disinformation.

I speak in general terms, but regardless, I don't have to elaborate on how ridiculous this logic is.

Unfortunately, and I admit this, I have a problem with not responding to things. I have a very strong urge to respond to something that provokes me. And I don't mean something stupid like a random “You're a moron” comment, but someone literally trying to argue with me. As a result, this has led to me such lengths as arguing no-planes with a holocaust denier. Not the finest use of my time, to say the least, but the point is that it's quite stressful to argue with people so blinded to any form of rationale. CIT is special in this case because their logic is, as noted above, so incredibly circular. Take something like this as the common debate with a CIT follower:

“But that witness made inaccurate statements”

“Oh, it's just memory craziness. But the part about it being on the north side of citgo is true”

“Then how come the physical evidence doesn't comply?”

“The physical evidence was faked. I know because the witness told me it was on the north side.”

“But other witnesses, more in fact, said they saw it on the south side, and they did it without making blatant inaccuracies”

“They're liars/agents/naive victims of hearsay. My witnesses are right.”

“But this is all speculation!”

“I don't care. My witnesses say I'm right.”

“No they don't!”

“I don't care.”

And it goes on and on with you providing new counter-evidence over and over again as they simply find new ways of phrasing that their witnesses said they saw it on the north side.

CIT is, perhaps, the best example in the movement for people who take speculation over science or any form of rational analysis. When Jim Hoffman wrote his essay criticizing the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theory, he noted in his next article the many comments he got that witness statements and the like couldn't stand up to hard, physical evidence, which prompted him to make a critique focusing on the physical evidence. Yet, CIT does not only a reverse of this but also exaggerates it to a ridiculous level.

Not only does CIT put witnesses before physical evidence, they outright IGNORE physical evidence, dismissing it as faked. And not only that, they cherry-pick which witnesses they use, putting thirteen up to the test of over a hundred. And not only that, but they cherry-pick which portions of their own witness testimony is valid! Anything that doesn't fit with their pre-conceived conclusions (I.e; “I saw a plane hit the fucking building”) is dismissed as an error, yet they're perfectly willing to rely on their north-of-citgo claims.

In the end, does CIT really do anything for the movement?

The presence of disinformation

Disinformation: The deliberate act of spreading false information. Most people in the 9/11 Truth Movement are aware of the term, yet many are equally oblivious to the level of it's presence. Some disinformation is easy to spot such as directed energy weapons from space, no planes at the World Trade Center, etc... But some disinfo has been highly successful at infiltrating the movement. In particular, the idea that no plane hit the Pentagon. This hoax has spread even outside the movement. Just earlier today I was discussing 9/11 with a friend of mine who, when I got to the Pentagon, asked about how the hole was too small. A claim which I quickly refuted. This is someone who hasn't studied 9/11. Someone who hasn't taken much of a glance at alternative theories. Yet she had also heard of this no-plane theory, despite the ease in debunking it with physical evidence. I don't think I need to elaborate on how bad this is when even people outside of the activist movement are under a false impression that that is what we, as a movement, endorse.

Opposition to the movement generally regards such claims of disinformation as paranoid and ridiculous. This was much the case recently when my interview with Jim Hoffman was posted at Screw Loose Change, where the topic of COINTELPRO was prevalent. Pat Curley, one of the main bloggers on Screw Loose Change, states:

“Where Hoffman goes off the rails is on the assumption that certain theories he finds nutty are being pushed forward by forces malevolent to 9-11 "Truth". The reason that certain nutty theories are being pushed forward are that small "Truther" factions have formed around individual aspects of 9-11.”

It's true that factions have been formed around individual aspects of 9-11, just as Pat says, but that hardly means that there are not those who push these theories deliberately to associate 9/11 Truth with nutty, unscientific ideas. The two are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, it is most certainly not “off the rails” that there would be such malevolent infiltrators.

COINTELPRO is well-documented series of covert operations done to investigate and disrupt dissident political movements. Activist movements have long been targets of government officials. This is not paranoid nuttiness. This is documentation. This sort of information is readily available from the FBIs own records. Known examples of groups targeted by COINTELPRO operations are women's rights movements, the civil rights movement, the NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, and nearly any group that protested the Vietnam War.

Putting it simply, disinformation has been prevalent in many activist movements in the past few decades. To say that there has been infiltration in the 9/11 Truth Movement is not only within the realm of reality, contrary to implications against that, but also completely reasonable. Why would our movement not be infiltrated? Why would there not be an eye out for us? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the official story is true, the fact of the matter is that we are aiming towards a massive revolution that opposes a great deal of ideals held by the majority of politicians, significantly including those in the current administration. We're talking about a virtual coup d'etat. That's more than enough reason to, at the very least, keep an eye on us.

So if the movement has, as seems likely, been infiltrated, then why on Earth would they not attempt a method of disruption as efficient as disinformation? Disruption was the primary purpose of the COINTELPRO operations. Spreading ludicrous theories with speculation and pseudo-science is an easy to way to divide the movement and make their theories, even the legitimate ones, seem entirely fringe. Certainly, we have seen such theories from “no-planes” to “directed energy weapons” to “faked cell phone calls”. Many who have fallen for these theories have been sucked into them to the point of being unable to accept science, logic, or any sort of rational analysis. Perfect conditions for anyone who wants us distracted.

So with all these perfectly valid reasons to suspect deliberate disruption, let alone infiltration, why is it so ludicrous to critics of the movement to think that there could be malevolent forces within our boundaries? I understand it's common for “debunkers” to write us off as paranoid nutbars, because ad-hominem is easy and sometimes when you have such a lack of respect towards your opponents it's hard to take them seriously. But let's be rational. Let's be reasonable. Is it really that unrealistic for there to be intentionally disruptive individuals within the Truth Movement?

I don't think so. I see it as all to easy to sneak inside the movement and cause division and distraction. I see the media paying a great deal of attention to hoax theories and hoax advocates such as Jim Fetzer and then sneakily avoiding anything new of substance that is released (take, for example, the recent thermite paper). I see the movement in the midst of a rebuilding period where it has to disseminate the massive amounts of disinformation throughout it. Are government forces involved?

Is that really so unreasonable?