Critical, open-minded thinking is in short supply in 9/11 debate

The goal of education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind – Malcolm Forbes
People are very open-minded about new things – as long as they’re exactly like the old ones – Charles Kettering
November 24, 2010

By Craig McKee

It’s all about assumptions – that immovable foundation of ideas we won’t compromise under any conditions even when those ideas are proven wrong. These are the dogmatic beliefs that block us from considering new possibilities.
We all have biases. We all operate with a set of core beliefs about how the world works. We all see things through the filter of our upbringing and our experiences. But truly wise people are those who realize the limiting effects of their biases, and who will consider new information even when it contradicts their existing beliefs.
The 9/11 Truth Movement was born as a result of people who were willing to look beyond the obvious. They didn’t take what they were told as unchallengeable truth; they used their brains to evaluate what they were told and what they saw. They tested the information critically.
Most people think they are completely open to new ideas and concepts; but they aren’t. They don’t apply the same criticism to the “official conspiracy theory” of 9/11 that they do to others they don’t like.
I’ve heard friends and acquaintances saying things like, “I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.” One of these is a college history professor, a very intelligent man. But I question how wise he is. You can be open-minded without being wise, but you can’t be wise without being open-minded.
The 9/11 doubters come up with many explanations for the anomalies of Sept. 11. These answers range from completely crazy to reasonable. Nevertheless, I’m happy to be challenged; this helps me refine my views and to drop ideas that have not stood up well to scrutiny. But too often, these challenges are the result of lazy thinking based on preconceptions, not on evidence.
The other night I heard from a friend whose roommate believes that all conspiracy ideas about 9/11 are easy to debunk. My friend related this with a sympathetic tone; he apparently felt bad that I was about to be shot down.
Take for example the reports of large explosions in the basements of the World Trade Center. His explanation? Jet fuel got into the elevator shafts and flowed down to the basement where it ignited.
This person is willing to take a wild stab in the dark with no proof, just because it supports the official account. He prefers to come up with a completely implausible scenario rather than consider the obvious – that bombs were detonated in the building.
Often the doubters won’t even bother to do this much. They’ll ignore points they can’t explain, hoping no one will notice. Otherwise, they’ll mock and ridicule ideas they don’t like.
They start with the conviction that it couldn’t have been the government that was responsible for this act of mass murder; it must have been Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden because that’s what TV said. And that’s what George W. Bush said. This is the non-threatening story we be comfortable with.
It doesn’t matter how many holes there are in this “official” story, the doubters will turn themselves – and the laws of physics – inside out to make their defences plausible. What they don’t seem to realize is that they’re not defending this story because it makes the most sense, they’re doing it because they have to defend their unmovable beliefs. They seem unsatisfied with any doubts that don’t involve catching the perpetrators on video tape planning the attack.
Having said that, open-mindedness doesn’t mean accepting all ideas as being equally valid; we still have to filter out the stuff that makes no sense. But we can still do this with an open mind.
Unfortunately, we often have trouble differentiating between someone who confidently expresses their opinions and someone who is closed off to any possible change in those opinions. You can be firm in your ideas without being closed-minded. We also mix up the concept of being open-minded with being indecisive. Not the same thing.
But intolerance can come from any direction. Some of the self-described “truthers” I’ve corresponded with, or who have commented on stories I’ve written, seem to be curiously happy to defend the official story. A 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon? They say that even considering this is offensive and divisive.
Sorry, but I don’t get it. They say the Pentagon event happened just like the official story says, but they’re questioning the official story? Huh?
I’ve heard a lot lately about how certain subjects are simply off limits to investigation. They’re just too off the wall, and considering them would tarnish the whole 9/11 Truth movement. And the people who have been in the movement for some time have already vetted everything, so new people should just accept their talking points and not question them.
But isn’t questioning what we’re supposed to be doing?
Obviously when John F. Kennedy was assassinated, the vast majority of people believed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. But a small minority didn’t buy it. And they didn’t give up. The result is that within 15 years, the majority of the U.S. population had come to agree that Kennedy had been killed as part of a wider conspiracy (actually it is closer to 75%).
That official story was weakened severely. And that’s what’s going to happen here. It’s not going to happen because of closed-mindedness or small-mindedness. It’ll happen because sincere people with open, critical minds are open to controversial ideas. These ideas may not be comfortable, but they might be true.


  1. I take it you subscribe to the JFK conspiracy as well then? (I don’t)
    Out of interest, what other conspiracy theories do you believe? Moon landings? Diana? Chemtrails? The 7/7 London Bombings?

    1. You’re engaging in one of the most common techniques for dismissing and discrediting someone for their beliefs. Comparing various “conspiracies” is a useless avenue of discussion. When there is strong evidence that the official story is wrong, I’m willing to look further.
      To satisfy your curiosity, I do indeed believe that JFK was killed in a conspiracy, and that elements of the U.S. government were involved. I think there’s plenty of evidence for this. The “Oswald acting alone” story is so discredited by now, most people have given up on it. Do you just believe whatever is fed to you? Howard Hunt, a CIA operative who was one of the Watergate burglars, confessed on his deathbed that he was part of a plot to kill Kennedy. This is on tape; you can hear it on You Tube. He left instructions with his son to release the tape after he died.
      I do not believe the moon landing was faked, but that’s because I listened to claims from both sides and made an informed (I hope) decision. To reject an idea like that just because it sounds crazy makes no sense.
      You know, it’s a fact that there are conspiracies all the time. You have to use facts and common sense to decide which ones you believe. To say they’re all false is ridiculous. You don’t think people ever get together to do bad things and then try to cover it up? That’s all a conspiracy is.
      P.S. The London bombings: don’t you think it’s odd that bombings were being simulated in the exact same underground stations as the ones that were attacked – at the exact same time?

      1. Umm… Didn’t Mr. Limey ask Craig essentially that same question about “other conspiracy theories” 8 days prior over on ‘mrrational’s’ blog?
        Is he reading from some sort of ‘debunking’ script? Is ‘debunking’ detrimental to one’s short term memory? Is there more than one “Limey” afoot?
        If ‘debunking’ causes memory lapse, perhaps Mr. Limey(s?) should consult a physician or take a holiday from his/their? ‘debunking’ endeavors.

        1. I think I need a holiday after a few weeks of dealing with Mr. Limey’s convoluted logic. Referring to things like the moon landing is a great way of deflecting attention from the fact that he can’t back up the official story of 9/11 with his own facts. And good for you for picking up the repetition.

      2. Yes, mrboz, Craig was indeed asked the same question over on that other blog. You will also have noticed that Craig didn’t answer it. Hence the question was repeated on his own blog, the assumption being that he didn’t notice the original question.
        I am curious as to what other conspiracies people subscribe to because I suspect that people rarely subscribe to just one.
        I don’t suppose you would care to enlighten me as to what other conspiracies you accept?

        1. I may have purposely ignored the question on the other blog because I think it’s a question that intends to mock, not to get at the truth. I responded fully on my own blog (your question and my answer are the first two comments on the post “Critical, open-minded thinking is in short supply in 9/11 debate”)
          I look at events individually and assess the evidence in each case. Unlike you, I have an open mind, and I consider the merits of arguments before I make up my mind. Your last sentence assumes that people accept certain types of conspiracy theories based on some pre-existing bias. That may be true for some, but not for me. At least I do my best to avoid this.

      3. Dear Mr. Limey,
        You make an excellent suggestion regarding what public presumptions, what public myths, or what conspiracy theories people subscribe to.
        Unfortunately, this isn’t the right forum for it.
        Fortunately, your blog is rather under-utilized and would be an excellent venue to explore this area of your interest. What’s more, you gain home-court advantage. I’m sure Mr. McKee will let you post a direct link to that (assumed) well-written posting once you have finished it and posted it.
        I, for one, am truly looking forward to your blog posting on that subject. I hope you will indulge us with all of the public myths — or as Dr. Zelikow says public presumptions — that you subscribe to.
        Chop, chop, hop to it, Mr. Limey, because I as your number 1 fan (if postings on your blog are any indication) can hardly wait!
        Cheerfully yours,
        Señor El Once

        1. I’m looking forward to that posting as well. I’d love to see Mr. Limey do more than just criticize other people’s research. And I would be more than happy to include a link to that posting on my blog.

  2. It was more personal interest than any attempt at anything.
    Yes its a very freaky coincidence and it proves that such coincidences sometime happen, nothing more.
    Why is accepting the truth when its told to me such a bad thing? I am very sceptical of things that require it.
    So what if other conspiracies exist? What does that actually prove?
    Death bed confession you say…. Does that not ring any alarm bells at all? It sure does to me. Is there a separate source to confirm anything from this death bed confession and are these sources more credible? If not, then why on earth should this confession be taken seriously?

    1. You hear alarm bells about a confession that you can listen to (you can also read interviews with his son about it), but you accept “freaky coincidences” without any question. You are using circular logic in saying that the bombs are proof of coincidences. You are not at all open to unexpected possibilities; you will go to ridiculous lengths to avoid considering anything that wasn’t fed to you by TV or governments.

      1. It doesn’t matter what medium its recorded on or how its presented, a deathbed confession is dubious and suspicious until it can be corroborated with other evidence.
        So a bomb went off on at the places where an exercise went off. Yeah, that’s a coincidence. If it really was a government plot don’t you think they’d not do an exercise that day, just to avoid precisely what you are accusing them of!
        And you accuse me of blinding accepting what’s fed to me.

        1. You call it suspicious without looking into it at all. That’s a completely closed mind. You reject an idea without any willingness to look into it.
          No, I don’t think they’d avoid an exercise on the same day; that’s the whole point. Exercise confuse people as to what’s happening. They provide cover for what’s being prepared. Someone finds evidence of preparations for the bombings, they can just say it’s part of the exercise. IT WAS THE SAME THREE STATIONS AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME! Same on 9/11. They had exercises that simulated planes being hijacked and flown into buildings, including the World Trade Center. These exercises kept fighters out of range to intercept the real planes.
          You believe there’s nothing suspicious about this?

  3. Its odd and its weird, yes. People creaming about it on the internet does not make it suspicious. Do you have specific corroborating evidence of intent that suggests this was a double bluff tactic?
    Do you know how many of these exercises are done annually? Do you know if the exercises were not as a response to specific intelligence on what types of attack might be possible?
    While you are accusing me of just swallowing a line that fed to me, you are going to coming to a conclusion without a full picture of what happened.

      1. Welcome to the frailties of being a human. You won’t be surprised to find out that I think much the same of some of your comments.
        That’s why a humans word, eyewitnes or otherwise and regardless of position, skill or knowledge, should not be taken on its own as evidence for anything.

        1. You can’t depend all on one thing to find the truth. You have to consider witnesses, physical evidence, past experience, etc.
          I have a question: why do you always feel that the story you’ve been told by whatever government is the correct one? Don’t you ever consider that maybe a government might be up to no good? And that they might choose to lie about it?

  4. Why do I always feel the government story is the correct one? That’s a pretty presumptuous question, but I’ll do what I can to answer it.
    Short answer is, I don’t. Individual politicians lie (or mis speak) about various things. The expenses scandal we have had to endure in the UK for the past year is a good example.
    With regards to conspiracies, the lie would not just be the government, it would also be the agencies contracted for the work, the journalists doing the reporting, the scientists and sceptics who independently come to the same conclusion as the official story. Then there is the physical evidence.
    I’m not really sure what you mean by ‘ maybe a government might be up to no good’ so I’ll need more clarification before trying to answer that.
    Needless to say, I have confidence that there would be a credible break in the story if either 9/11 or 7/7 were found to be inside jobs. Much like there was with Watergate all those years ago and the UK expenses scandal last year. Currently, I’m happy to accept the official story on both events because, frankly, the evidence supports it.

    1. Just because you keep repeating that the evidence supports the official story doesn’t make it true. Your comment, “I have confidence that there would be a credible break in the story if either 9/11 or 7/7 were found to be inside jobs” is another example of your circular logic. Someone has to prove inside job before there would be a “credible break”? And there is MORE strong evidence of an inside job with 9/11 than there was with Watergate. The difference is that the media (at least a small part of it at first) actually did its job. And the way you can easily tell that they’re not doing it now is to consider all the questions they’re not even asking. All the independent researchers (David Ray Griffin and others) have done the research the media is supposed to do. And we’re lucky they are. We’re lucky that unlike people like you, they started their inquiries with open minds.

  5. Dear Mr. Limey,
    I’m rather partial to this review of Ryan Mackey’s earlier version of the document you linke, because I think it still applies to the updated version.

    Someone reading just the Introduction or Discussion of Mackey’s 180-page article might easily conclude that the entire article is composed of insults, straw man arguments, innuendo, and appeals to authority. However, the article contains a range of types of arguments, from the obviously fallacious ones to cleverly misleading ones to superficially persuasive ones having some didactic value. This review will put Mackey’s arguments in context, reframed by the physical reality of the event.
    Here’s another relevant link summary of Mackey’s (earlier) work that I think still applies.

    And “given the sheer number of errors”, as Mackey puts it, his paper is, at best, just a tiresome blunder. The author simply states the opposite of every point made in Griffin’s chapter, and then supports that bizarre approach with 11 false claims and diversionary chatter. Of course, it’s very possible that this 200-page anniversary surprise was just another well-timed attempt to distract those looking into the evidence for the alternative hypothesis of 9/11.
    Both of the above links go into exhaustive detail — up to the point where those author’s get exhausted and exasperated by the document.
    It doesn’t take much googling to find the postings that shreds Ryan Mackey’s paper.
    Therefore, Mr. Limey, we end up coming around to motivation. What is our motivation for writing blogs and posting comments?
    You see, I am indeed somewhat religiously fanatical about 9/11, but in the same sense that I am religiously fanatical about 2+3=5 and not about 2+3=4.3. It is uncovering the God inspired Truth about 9/11 that propels me, having it explained in accordance with God’s laws of the physical universe, and not being snowplowed by special pleadings that have many forms in the OGCT, like having evidence & testimony ignored.
    Your motivation, Mr. Limey?

    1. I haven’t read the essay in question, but I certainly agree about the importance of facts and the laws of physics in determining what really happened that day. And I share your curiosity about Mr. Limey’s motives. So far, they – along with all his arguments – are a mystery to me.

      1. You should Craig.
        For example, on page 27 is the following quote from Mr Griffin “Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. If heat is applied to one portion of a steel beam, that
        portion will not be quickly heated up to the temperature of the flame, because the heat will quickly
        be diffused throughout the beam. Also, if that beam is connected to another one, the heat will be
        dispersed to that second beam. And if those two beams are interconnected with hundreds of other
        beams, the heat will be diffused throughout the entire network of beams.”
        This is similar to something you have already said and I replied to.
        Also on page 27 is a response. Starting off by explaining that Steel is actually not as good at conducting heat as Mr Giffin claims.
        See the table on this page:
        The first columns of numbers is what you are interested in. The higher the number, the better the conducting properties. Mild Steel, as used in construction has a low value when you compare it to excellent conductorts such as copper and gold. Steel simply does not conduct heat in the manner that Mr Griffin claims.
        I agree wholeheartedly that facts and the laws of physics are very important. This specific claim of Mr Griffins is not a fact and is not what the laws of physics dictate.
        My motivation is simply to correct falicy when I am able because I am passionate about the truth, as I suspect you are Craig.

      2. hmmm, I typed out a reply to this yesterday and its not listed, not even as waiting for moderation, not sure what happened there.
        Anyway, the reply was essentially an example of bad science from Mr Griffin. I think its on page 27 of the long document I linked to. Its Where Mr Griffin makes the claim (which you have also suggested) that steel would conduct the heat of the fire away. This isn’t true because steel of the type used in construction is not good enough at conduction heat to do that.
        I also found and included a link which listed types of metal and their conductive values, it showed mild steel being much lower than other metals which are known as good conductors, such as copper and gold.

      3. That doesn’t answer my question. Your belief and the scientific facts may not agree, so I challenge you to back up your statement with data to prove it correct.
        You made a statement as though it was fact, something you have accused me of.
        I don’t think I am being unreasonable when I ask you to specifically back up your assertion that the fire in those buildings could not have heated the steel, which had damaged fire protection, hot enough to weaken it to the point of failure.
        So come on, Craig, don’t just repeat your belief, show me the data.

        1. I have a better idea. Since you’re the one who believes the official story, YOU back up that story with data. It’s not my job to PROVE anything. I’d be happy just to get a new and independent investigation. You have to defend an indefensible scenario. You keep trying to distract people from the fact that your story is full of holes in every way. So, if you want to continue this discussion, we’ll get off this “show me that data” thing that you’re on. You can’t explain how the buildings came down, and you can’t explain the molten metal. I would think that’s where your efforts should be directed.

      4. Is that a deflection I see before me?
        I may as well just copy and past the NIST report for all it’ll do.
        But hey, if you want to make claims and then fail to back them up with the facts then I will call you out on it. After all that’s what you have done to me when you think I’ve been guilty of the same. So fair’s fair I say.

      5. Dear Mr. Limey,
        Copying and pasting the NIST report? If it was applicable and if you understood it, sure. The point is that neither hold true.
        Specifically, the NIST report is full of (subtle) errors, (major) omissions, and (obvious) distortions [which was part of the subtitle to a popular book in the 9/11 Truth Movement.] Those very errors, omissions, and distortions is what the 9/11 Truth Movement has been collectively chipping away at all these years.
        I am in a position to say that you, Mr. Limey, did not understand the NIST report, because if you did, you would have already been privy to the many holes the 9/11 Truth Movement has been poking in it. Not only that, if you understood it, you would agree to the validity of the weaknesses and incompleteness of the NIST report, and therefore you would not be blindly promoting it as you’ve been doing here.
        Time for you to go out and make another blog entry on your blog, kind of like your wimpy-ass posting that was intended as a response to 9/11 mini-nukes — which doesn’t. I need another good laugh for the weekend. Chop-chop, hop to it, sir.

  6. “Limey”‘s ideas/gospel, in all likelihood originate(s) in 2 places:
    I see that “limey” has already invoked his high priest of “debunking:” Ryan Mackey of the US govt-funded NASA and of the James Randi forum of magicians and illusion. (It reminds me a little of the old man behind the curtain in Oz, frankly). OLD “news” there, really:
    I’m confident that if one looks closely, more than one “whopper” (to borrow “limey’s” language) can be found in Mackey’s 300-ish pages, in addition to the double negative sentence structure that I remember being so prevalent in Mackey’s prose.
    I find myself wondering if “limey” has any NEW material for us (and of course what pseudonym “limey” posts under at the James Randi forum of Magicians and Illusionists).

    1. Yes, Mr. Limey says he’s looking for the truth, but I think he’s got blinders on (at best). His arguments go in circles to the point where it seems hopeless to imagine him opening his mind, even a little bit. His best tactic is demanding that I prove what I believe while he has no obligation to prove the official story. I have no problem defending my position based on the facts, but he can’t do this. My favorite of his arguments was when he said that we know Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because all the other flights that took off that day were accounted for. How’s that for logic? Thanks for the links and the comment.

      1. The search for the truth is yours Craig, not mine. I am already in posession of the truth. You are the one consistently failing to comprehend the simplicities, which is why I have to keep repeating myself. Its a wonder we’re not both sick with dizziness.
        Nice quote by the way, I should commend you on your ability to nit pick.
        Oh and since you don’t have a problem backing up your position with facts, how about that factual backup for your comment that the fires would not have got hot enough to weaken the steel. Come on man, chop, chop!

        1. Yes, it must be nice to have the truth without having to look for it. It’s hard to imagine getting through to someone like you with an attitude like that. Your comment, “You are the one consistently failing to comprehend the simplicities” is dripping with condescension, and no one who has such a tenuous grasp of common sense should be that arrogant. Yes, I’m good at simplicities. Here’s one: reasoning with you is like reasoning with a brick wall.
          As for the pressing demand from you for me to make my case re the steel, I will get to that when it is convenient for me, not when you choose. I’ve consistently put my views out there for criticism, so no one can say I can’t back up what I say. You think an office fire burning for 56 minutes is enough to bring down one of the most solidly built skyscrapers ever built. Why don’t you back that up? No, not with a handy link, with your own argument. In the dozens of comments you’ve posted on this site and on mrrational, you’ve never proven anything about the official story. You’re just better at muddying the waters with ridiculous comments like, “I am already in possession of the truth.” You seem to think that the official story stands and everyone who doesn’t agree with it have to prove their version. But I’m focusing on the official story because I believe we need a new investigation. Why don’t you join me in calling for one?

      2. Dear Mr. Limey,
        The “chop, chop” nit should be directed at me, instead of Mr. McKee. But since you drag me into this, I might as well address your concerns.
        Mr. Limey wrote:

        How about that factual backup for your comment that the fires would not have got hot enough to weaken the steel. Come on man, chop, chop!

        Having problems with the Google, are we, sir? You could learn a lot by entering into Google phrases like “steel blast furnace”, “temperatures weakening iron”, “temperature steel loses strength”, and “temperature jet fuel burns”.
        What temperature does steel lose strength? At about 550° C (1,000° F) steel is at 50% strength and at about 800° C (1472° F) structural steel loses 90% of its strength. The properties of steel vary widely, depending on its alloying elements.
        What temperature does jet fuel reach in open air? 287.5 °C (549.5 °F).
        Already you should be seeing a problem that jet fuel can’t heat steel hot enough to lose 50% of its strength, and this is before the heat conductivity of steel in a structure is factored in. And this is before we observe that the buildings were over-designed by at least a factor of 2 and that NIST said the jet fuel burned off in the first few minutes (assuming of course that it was a commercial jet).
        The next two problems are that:

        “(1) modern office contents, including furniture, computers, floor and wall coverings and curtains are not a rich source of fuel and generally incorporate fire-retardant materials and (2) modern office contents are spread out through a large volume of space as well, creating a diffuse, lower-intensity fire.”

        On top of this, the fires were asymmetric. They’d burn hot in one area and migrate over time in search of fuel. When fuel is consumed in one area, the fire intensity in that area ebbs, lowering the temperature and thereby making the observed sudden & symmetric failure improbable from the fuel sources available. Firefighters who made it to the levels of the fires in one tower described what they saw and what it would take to put them out, “two isolated pockets of fire; two lines”.
        Here are some links to get you started. Educate thyself.
        And if this pokes your interest, I’m sure you have a local community college that has welding courses.
        Were you to take a welding course, both gas welding and arc welding exercises would quickly demonstrate to you the energy required to weaken or bend steel at a localized spot. And due to heat conductivity of metal, the larger the piece of metal, the longer it can take to heat to that point. In any event, you’ll be using metal pliers to carry your test piece of metal to the water tank to cool off in an impressive display of boiling bubbles.
        While you are making your welding observations, do not let it slip your attention that neither surplus community college furniture nor jet fuel (among many potential fuel sources) are used to achieve the weakening of iron/steel. And were you to assemble a pile of such, ignite it, and dangle a steel beam (carrying some load as well) over it, you’d learn what is and isn’t possible.
        If you want to be effective as a 9/11 Truth debunker, you should at least know and understand the arguments that the 9/11 Truth Movement is making. For example, we can take your “burning” questions and potentially find answers, like in the experiments of Jonathan Cole.
        Although you state that you are “already in possession of the truth,” you seem to be having difficulties imparting it. I sincerely hope that with the above you will stop consistently failing to comprehend the simplicities.
        Senor El Once

        1. Nice job. Looking forward to reading how he tries to twist what you’ve just written. Mr. Limey would have fewer problems with Google if he had any sincere interest in finding the truth. Instead he’s only interested in clouding the issue.

    2. Mr. Limey has a blog:
      Mr. Plumber has a blog:
      They are both quite remarkable, and I encourage both of them to continue to make postings and building up their body of work.
      Alas, I should note that I do not agree with their content. Then why do I find them so remarkable? Because of the trend lines.
      Their postings and blogs fit in line with these trends…
      Operation Mockingbird: “was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence domestic and foreign media beginning in the 1950s.”
      The PNAC manifesto “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”: “If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace,” and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new “global commons.” The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict… “
      “The Pentagon’s War on the Internet”: “The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet… The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative…”
      “The US government has allegedly set up a special security wing (Q Group) with the sole task of distancing Washington from any involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.” According to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen
      Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist by H. Michael Sweeney: “Avoidance. Selectivity. Coincidental. Teamwork. Anti-conspiratorial. Artificial emotions. Inconsistent. Time constant.”
      Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proprosal by Glenn Greenwald: “Cass Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-“independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here. Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” “
      Pay attention to what is happening to Wikileaks and what it means for clamp-down on the internet, which I believe is the real agenda being driven there. (Notice how Wikileaks had no 9/11 information and nothing damaging to Israel?)
      I’ll wager right now that neither Mr. Limey’s nor Mr. Plumber’s blog will survive the test of time, but their demise will be self-inflicted. Why? Because their body of work is building a leaning tower of Pissa with its circular logic, lies, and misdirection that is all the more noticeable both within their own trend lines as well as the trend lines mentioned above.
      I’ll be happy to lose my wager, though, and have Mr. Limey’s and Mr. Plumber’s body of work preserved for the database archeologists of the future, because the research into the Zeitgeist of our time will only prove and underscore the paranoid speculation made by the likes of me as to what their true motivation was.
      As an aside, Mr. Limey refuses to confront me directly, because he and I know he can’t. Not that the doesn’t have the skills to try, but he has neither the science nor govt reports to support him, because milli-nukes and CGI are off-limits even to entertain a rational discussion for they then become so glaringly obvious. Mr. Plumber is now moderating his blog, and it remains to be seen whether my last posting will see the light of day there.

      1. I always enjoy your smack-downs of Mr. Limey and Mr. Plumber (sounds like a board game). I think that the only people who will be interested in either of the blogs mentioned are those with equally narrow and rigid views. It’s impossible to argue with people who assume everything they say is already proven, so they don’t have to. They’re great at demanding answers to questions that are really a waste of time. Yet they don’t answer any questions put to them.

  7. Well then Mr. Limey- one conspiracy that I lend a fair amount of credence to is that there exists an online cult-like group that gathers under the name of their bearded, diminutive Canadian ‘Amazing Pederast’ guru for the purpose of discrediting, ridiculing, and allegedly ‘debunking’ any opinions or research that runs counter to their clique’s self-described ‘skeptic’ dogma. They often spread blatant propaganda and use the traits of the pseudo-skeptic that Marcello Truzzi described.
    I have heard rumors that one of this group’s High Priests operates under a codename having something to do with a common condiment for potatoes and stuffing, or something similar. His online collection of outdated, biased, and often erroneous propaganda is rumored to be something of a “gospel” to this shadowy online group (that usually uses cryptic anonymous codenames like ‘TruthersLie’ and ‘beachnut’), and they proselytize the dogma of their High Priests of ‘debuninking’ far and wide (but apparently only on the internet).
    Here is some information that I have been able to gather on this group that I hope will benefit your research project, Mr. Limey:
    Apparently, there is a ‘financial’ branch of this group that is actively seeking funds from their members (somewhat like a tithing of sorts):

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *