November 17, 2010
By Craig McKee
I have to admit that when I started writing about the so-called terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 just three months ago, I was somewhat naive. I thought that everyone who doubts the official story about 9/11 would be working towards a common goal.
Now, I’m not so sure.
I am sure that there are thousands of sincere people around the world who feel we’ve been conned and who don’t want to let it happen. What has come to be known as the 9/11 Truth movement is made up of many educated and intelligent people who know that the official story is impossible on hundreds of different grounds. Without people like David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Richard Gage, Mark Gaffney, Dylan Avery and others, we’d be nowhere.
But the online world of 9/11 discussion and debate has a dark side. And this comes in the form of web sites that censor certain views and online “contributors” who ridicule certain beliefs about what happened. They don’t refute them, they just dismiss. Reminds me of how the media has treated the 9/11 Truth movement.
I got a taste of this myself recently when I was banned from the largest 9/11 truth site in the world: 9/11 Blogger with its claimed 18 million hits. Apparently I’m not the first; many have been banished to voiceless purgatory. Or at least to other sites.
I had a article of mine posted on the site about three weeks ago, and I was pleased about this. I felt that if I could post my own articles there, my blog would gain readership. So I registered, was accepted, and posted two more articles. One, accusing USA Today’s Mike Walter of lying about what he saw at the Pentagon, was censored. I lived with it.
Some comments I did receive to the other posts were quite negative. Comments included words like “offensive,” “baseless,” “terrible,” “sad,” and “awful” (my favourite). It’s amazing I could pack all that into two articles.
Now, I’m not thrilled to get bad reviews, but I’m also not going to be dissuaded by people who don’t agree with me. But having this come from people who allegedly do agree that 9/11 was an inside job was a surprise.
The main thrust of the criticism, it appeared, was that certain “unacceptable” subjects found their way into my writing. Since I’ve only been writing about 9/11 for three months, I had not become familiar with what these subjects were. With apologies to Oscar Wilde, I’ll now call them “the topics that must never speak their names.”
The first taboo I broke was to write about how some of the witnesses, especially those connected to major media outlets, seemed to be lying about what they saw that day. I stand by that. No, Mike Walter did not see the wings of a Boeing 757 “fold in” as it entered the Pentagon.
The critical comments about my piece seemed to be saying that only scientific evidence was worth talking about, and that anything else was working against the truth.
On another post, I received a comment by someone called kdub who became “sick to his stomach” about my comments about witnesses. Really? He also seemed to hate the idea that anyone would suggest that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon. Apparently this is considered a crazy idea. I thought the idea that a plane did hit the Pentagon was crazy.
Another contributor, SnowCrash, attacked “pseudo-science” of the “no plane” Pentagon theory. This theory takes its place alongside video fakery and the idea that nuclear devices may have been used to bring down the twin towers. These people actually believe they should be able to veto the subjects before they can be discussed. In fact, the site even tells you when you register that these two subjects are off limits.
But the final straw was when I posted a 2003 satirical article about conspiracy theories by Gerard Holmgren. I thought it was funny and provocative, but it mentioned the taboo subject of “missiles.” Here’s what kdub wrote:
“Just read this. Awful indeed. Both of these Craig McKee articles are offensive and baseless. It makes me sick to my stomach watching people accuse witnesses of lying. And of course just like CIT (Citizen Investigation Team) and the RCFP (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press), the flyover theory is another big focus of these divisive individuals (Ranke, McKee) and groups. The fly-over and “fake witness” theories (and the groups I mentioned above) have simply been debunked and discredited.”
Divisive? Now I felt this was plain weird. Fake witness theories have been debunked? Really? This guy is a 9/11 truther? I’ve been a journalist for more than 23 years, and I have a pretty good sense of bullshit when I hear it.
I posted a response saying that I questioned the sincerity of kdub’s comment. That was the last thing I posted there. Next time I tried to log in, I was blocked, and I have been ever since.
He and SnowCrash can apparently call you every name in the book, but you can’t suggest that they have another agenda. And 9/11 Blogger reveals that it’s not a sincere vehicle for pursuit of the truth. At best it’s a club that is very fussy about whom it lets in; at worst it’s a vehicle for censorship and maybe even disinformation.
Instead of discouraging new truthers by mocking certain opinions in advance, it might be a better strategy to strengthen the case with views we hold in common. Then we can look at controversial opinions to see if they hold up to scrutiny. Let’s not forget that ALL of 9/11 truth was once highly controversial and still is with many people.
Ultimately, the 9/11 discussion is NOT a club, and it’s not for elitists. It’s a grassroots movement, and it must remain democratic. And unfortunately, it seems we have to deal with some people who claim they’re fighting for the cause – but aren’t.