THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTHLINGS

© Gerard Holmgren:Nov 7 2006.
This article or any part of it may not be reproduced without express permission from the author in writing. This prohibition excludes quotation for reasonable reference purposes, providing that the article is linked to.

What is a "truthling" ?

A truthling is a person who subscribes to a strange religious cult calling itself the "911 truth movement".

Superficially, there may appear to be nothing strange about the idea of a truthmovement in relation to the events of Sept 11. Anybody who has looked critically at the events of that day can see that the official story is a lie.

So it is to be expected that despite some disagreement about the details of exactly what happened, many people would find broad agreement in the idea that the truth of the event should be sought out by researchers to the best of their ability and then that research promoted to the wider community by activists with an interest in the truth. One would expect some healthy debate and diversity in relation to some specific points of research.

The reality of the situation is somewhat different. If you search around the web for "911 truth movement" you'll find a lot of talk about "truth" and a lot about the "movement", but most of this talk has little to with either researching the subject or promoting, or critically analyzing the research which has been done. If the "9/11 truth movement " isn't about this, then exactly what is it about ?

That question is the subject of this article.

OBSTRUCTING THE TRUTH

A lot of good research has been done, but hardly any of the authors of this research want to be associated with any such movement, because it's primary motive appears to be to obstruct any real understanding of what happened that day and at a deeper level, to abolish the fundamental concept of truth.

Let's begin with the first objective identified above. Obstructing the truth about Sept 11.

To analogize: Who is it who talks most about "peace, freedom and democracy"? The very people who are in reality the most obvious enemies of such practices. People like Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush and Tony Blair.

When a person's primary occupation is committing terrorism and mass murder, starting wars, and dismantling civil liberties, then of course they are going to package it with the labels of "peace, freedom and democracy". You don't expect them to openly proclaim themselves as warmongers, terrorists, murderers and practitioners of totalitarianism. The fact that they are guilty of such crimes means that they need to shout the rhetoric of "peace" etc louder than anyone else.

Of course, some people buy their propaganda and some do not, although this question is better visualized as a graduated range of responses rather than a simple yes or no. Naturally, those who - in broad terms -do not buy the cover rhetoric, have reactions which - quite justifiably- range from unease to outrage.

And of course, the outrage levels are highest amongst those who believe or at least suspect that the Govt was at least complicit or involved in some way in the events of Sept 11.


The nausea invoked by the actions of these criminals and the lies of the media which support them can easily blind one into thinking that anyone who spouts rhetoric purporting to expose these lies must be genuinely involved in the pursuit and promotion of "truth".



Unfortunately it isn't that simple. In general, those who trumpet the term "truth" most often and most enthusiastically are actually the worst liars , just as Bush, Blair, Rice et al find it necessary to spout rhetoric about "peace, freedom and democracy" as a cover for the fact that they are some of the worst enemies of such pursuits.


This is what the "9/11 truth movement" is all about. Telling whoppers, packaging them with the label of "9/11 truth", and selling the package by exploiting the understandable knee jerk reaction of many people that anyone who is calling the official Sept 11 story a lie must be working for the truth.


Of course, there is a an element of truth in such rhetoric. The official story of Sept 11 is a lie. That much we can agree on. But that doesn't mean that any alternative story which might be floated in opposition to it is necessarily "truth".


Let's take an example of one specific lie within the bigger lie. It's quite obvious that American Airlines flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon on Sept 11.


From there, many in the "truth movement" invoke the classic logical fallacy.



"AA77 hitting the Pentagon is a lie. Truth is the opposite of lies. Therefore *any* alternative story about what hit the Pentagon is "truth".


This logical fallacy creates fertile ground for anyone who is prepared to label themselves with the term "9/11 truth" to just make up anything they like as an alternative story, and present it as "truth" even if it's just as ridiculous and unfounded as the mainstream lie.


For example, a fellow named Karl Schwarz started spreading the story that what really hit the Pentagon was a medium sized military plane - an A3 SkyWarrior. Schwarz never provided a shred of evidence for this assertion, but it didn't stop this piece of fantasy from being widely promoted as "research" with the label of "9/11 truth". Basically, Schwarz told us that "his team" had identified an engine part allegedly found at the scene as coming from an A3 SkyWarrior and we were supposed to believe it because Schwarz said so.



It's worth considering the following facts as a brief example of how critical thinking amongst the truth cult in relation to Bushco's story turns into braindead mush in relation to Schwarz's story.


The hole in the Pentagon wall after the initial impact was about 16 ft wide. A Boeing 757 (the kind of plane claimed by the official story) has a wingspan of about 125 ft. Obviously a 125 ft wingspan can't fit through a 16 ft hole. And there is no sign of any wing debris outside the building. Since the wings are neither inside the building nor outside the building then they are not there. Which means that they were never there unless you believe that wings can vaporize on impact - without doing any significant damage to the building and without doing any apparent damage to the lawn which was only a few feet below them.Which means that a craft with a 125 ft wingspan can not have been responsible for the impact. Many truthlings accept this obvious conclusion, although there are also many who go along with the official fantasy that the wingssomehow vaporized on impact or folded up into the fuselage and got carried into the building and then vaporized once they were inside, or even "flowed through the building a liquid state " according to group of physicists hired to push the official line.


There were even two truthlings who claimed that a plane is made of a semi-soft material like butter and that if a material of this type hits a hard object, it will punch a small hole and squeeze itself through like toothpaste from a tube, thus explaining the small hole and the lack of wreckage. These two physics whizzes are Leland Lehrman, an enthusiastic promoter of the A3 SkyWarrior spin, as linked above, and Phil Jayhan - inventor of the extremely silly "pod theory". These claims came via email and I will write them up as time permits.


But let's leave the extremes of truthling lunacy and return to the realm of regulation stupidity.