As an investigative journalist, Robert Parry has spent his life dealing with facts and evidence.  His book, Secrecy and Privilege, is one of the great contributions that he has offered.  That book covers several important events in the last thirty-five years of US history that have been downplayed and covered-up by the mainstream media.  Parry’s work shows that he is clearly one of the most careful writers in terms of not extending evidence beyond what it says directly.  He takes that approach so seriously that oftentimes he cannot say anything directly himself, and appears to be perpetually waiting for a confession before taking a stand.  This latest article takes that position to an extreme, suggesting that the evidence of what happened on 9/11 should not be examined at all until we have confessions from the perpetrators. 

Parry taught us, in Secrecy and Privilege, that an open disdain for evidence is the hallmark of propaganda.   Two such propaganda programs described in his book involve some of the same people who started the 9/11 Wars.  The first of these is the program funded by Nixon’s former Treasury Secretary, William Simon, who was also a partner at the investment firm of Salomon Brothers.  At the time of the Watergate scandal, Simon initiated a “counter-intelligentsia” program to fund and train propaganda “think tanks, media organizations and pressure groups” like The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.  The propaganda that created and supported the neocons was funded through this effective program, which utilized numerous new foundations and media outlets to publish “over-the-top anti-liberal screeds.”

The second program that Parry clued us into was President Reagan’s office of disinformation, better known as the National Security Council’s Special Planning Group for “Public Diplomacy.”  This was run by long time CIA propaganda veteran, Walter Raymond.  What began as an attempt to gain the public’s support for funding the militant groups in Central America grew into a powerful force for lying to the American public that appears to live on to this day.

In his own recent, over-the-top anti-truth screed, “The 9/11 ‘Truth’ Parlor Game”, Parry exhibits the same disdain for facts and evidence that he attributes to these right-wing propagandists.   Parry uses the derogatory term “truthers,” which he continues to put in quotation marks throughout the article, when referring to the people he is criticizing.  This indicates that he knows he does not have the facts and evidence on his side and instead must resort to name-calling.  Many 9/11 truth advocates, like myself, find this term to be offensive yet the corporate media and Robert Parry often use it in order to belittle us without addressing the evidence. 

In his article, Parry rambles for several paragraphs about the “preposterous notions” and “anti-empiricism” of 9/11 truth advocates who, he writes, use “every imaginable example of false logic.”  This is strong, emotional language and again shows that Parry must resort to exaggerations when dealing with this issue.  He then finally does what every other propagandist has done, he sets up a straw man “truther” to attack, saying — “here is some of what they believe”:

• “Operatives working for President Bush wired 100-plus floors of the WTC towers” with explosives
• “Truthers insist that no plane hit the Pentagon; that Bush’s team attacked it with a missile.”

Both of these claims are false and can easily be discounted with minimal investigation into the facts.  In the seven years I have been seeking the truth about 9/11, I have never heard anyone claim that “President Bush” directed the wiring of 100-plus floors of the WTC towers with explosives, and the evidence does not suggest that at all.  The evidence suggests that, just as with any other demolition, explosive charges were placed on only a small percentage of the floors in the towers.  Additionally, if Parry is going to claim that explosives cannot be used without wiring, he should first explain to the families of thousands of victims in Iraq how their loved ones could not possibly have been killed by improvised explosive devices ignited with cell phones.

Here are some of the facts and evidence that Parry completely ignored when writing this new article about 9/11 and explosives at the WTC.

• The probability that the only three examples in history of the fire-, or fire and damage-, caused destruction of a skyscraper occurred on the same day in the same place is infinitesimal
• There exists substantial photographic evidence of the use of explosions at the WTC, which has not been addressed by any non-explosive explanation
• There were many eyewitnesses who provided testimony to explosive effects at the WTC
• Extremely high temperatures existed at the WTC site, indicating the use of energetic materials
• Environmental data suggests that energetic materials were present at the WTC
• The fact that government scientists spent seven years trying to provide scientific support for a non-explosive explanation, and they failed
• Independent scientists have clearly described the problems with the latest official explanations but, as with all the evidence for explosives at the WTC, the government has ignored those independent scientists

The second major example that Parry provides, as proof that truth advocates have used “every imaginable example of false logic,” is that “truthers insist” no plane hit the Pentagon.  However, even the smallest effort by an honest journalist would reveal that truth advocates do not insist upon that claim.  Not even Wikipedia would make such an obviously false claim about the truth movement.  In fact, there has been a well-publicized disagreement within the truth movement about what hit the Pentagon which originated with the claims and actions of Donald Rumsfeld and the seizure of videos by the FBI.  Serious 9/11 researchers have pointed out, from the beginning of this debate, that the evidence surrounding Flight 77 and the Pentagon is far from conclusive.

Why would a competent journalist like Robert Parry resort to such badly-researched exaggerations, which indicate that he has not looked into the evidence at all, even the evidence presented by his own friends and colleagues?  The reason appears to be that Parry, like so many other professionals who have turned a blind eye toward 9/11 evidence, would die if he admitted that we are still largely unaware of what happened on September 11.  That is, his ego would die if he had to admit that average Americans who have never been trained in journalism, or had any investigative training at all, are well ahead of him in terms of awareness about what is arguably the most important historical event of our lifetime. 

We have seen this kind of denial before, of course, and we know that there are psychological reasons for it.  People who can draw such a hard line in their minds, between closely related concepts like blowback and managed blowback, are simply fooling themselves as they struggle to maintain their self-image.  In that sense, we can see that it is actually Robert Parry who is playing a game — an ego game within the parlor of his own mind.

Truth movement supporters are not immune to these kinds of games.  In response to criticisms like that of Parry, truth advocates often resort to simple non-evidentiary reactions.  Once a person takes a strong position for one aspect of research or another, they have the tendency to ignore evidence that opposes that viewpoint.  Such reactions have been common in the debate about the Pentagon.

Truth advocates have used another technique that plays into the ego game.  This technique is the appeal to authority, in which we suggest that people should be impressed by how many PhDs we have on our side, or how many scientists, or how many engineers and architects.  This is the same non-evidentiary approach that the official-line supporters took before they saw that the numbers were clearly in favor of truth advocates.

Another example of how truth advocates often fall prey to psychological weaknesses, drawing us farther from the truth, is when they engage in doublethink about the importance of 9/11 truth.   Some of the most respected 9/11 researchers are known to tell us that we have been lied to about what happened on 9/11, and that this fact is a means by which the war machine can be derailed, while at the same time these researchers deny that any response on the part of the war machine has been made.  Some truth advocates still fail to recognize that we cannot have it both ways.  Either what we’re doing is important and therefore a response will be necessary, or what we’re doing is not important. 

What kind of response would the war machine make?  It seems entirely possible that propaganda efforts would be employed, much as they were employed by William Simon and Reagan’s office of disinformation described by Robert Parry.  It is also very probable that the military and intelligence budgets that have been dramatically increased since 9/11 would allow for COINTELPRO-type infiltration of grassroots efforts like the truth movement.  In fact, we know that such actions have been taken and have been recently exposed.  We also know that at least one of President Obama’s appointees has openly called for the “cognitive infiltration” of 9/11 truth groups.   

Coincidentally, only one response to Parry’s badly-researched hit piece has been forthcoming.  This response was recently posted by James H. Fetzer, who previously caused considerable disruption within the truth movement.  The Fetzer article is an example of shameful, self-aggrandizing theft and falsehood.  The author did not contribute to any of the research he claims as “our research,” and apparently cannot even spell Parry’s name or the name of the company that I worked for in his continued efforts to spread false information.  The article also makes wild assertions that are not supported by evidence, such as — “…every claim the government has made about 9/11 is false.”

Fetzer suddenly appeared on the 9/11 truth scene in late 2005, immediately after the publication of a paper by physicist Steven Jones.  At that time, Fetzer wrote to many prominent truth advocates, saying – “Steve Jones and I would like to invite you to join us as members of a new society.”  Having been known for some dubious contributions to the JFK assassination research community, Fetzer used this new association with Jones to thrust himself into a position of superficial leadership in the truth movement. 

Less than one year later, just before the 5th anniversary of the attacks when mainstream media attention was at its peak, Fetzer began speaking publicly about space beams destroying the WTC and other such nonsense.  He continued with grandiose claims about theories which had no evidentiary support, as this excerpt from one of his radio shows indicates. 

Jim Fetzer:  “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11 … I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?”

Judy Wood:  “Nope. I don’t think so.”

Fetzer:  “Planes?”

Judy Wood:  “No … I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.”

Fetzer:  “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my oh my oh my oh my. This is huge … this is huge Judy.”

What would cause a PhD to say that an unsubstantiated claim of space beams destroying the WTC was “the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11” and that it was “huge?”  Why was this claim more fascinating or huge than all the research previously published by the likes of Michael Ruppert, Daniel Hopsicker, David Ray Griffin, Steve Jones, Nafeez Ahmed, and Michel Chossudovsky?  Was it because there was overwhelming evidence to support the space beams claim, and the use of space beams at the WTC would make a huge impact in achieving justice for the victims?  No, none of that was true.  There was no evidence for space beams at the WTC.  Moreover, we soon found out that Fetzer’s colleagues could not even explain the physical principles by which this might work.  False information like these claims did, however, turn many serious people away from 9/11 truth.

The evidence we have suggests that Fetzer and his colleagues took the opportunity of the heightened mainstream media coverage around the 5^th anniversary of 9/11 to engage in an evil parlor game of disruption, similar to the COINTELPRO operations of the past and the kind of “cognitive infiltration” supported by members of the Obama Administration.  There is other evidence for this possibility, in that Fetzer is known to be an expert on the use and value of false information. 

One month before the attacks of 9/11, Fetzer presented a paper called “Information:  Does it have to be true?” to a conference at Carnegie Mellon University.  In this paper, Fetzer argues that false information (including disinformation) is just as meaningful as true information, implying that false information has just as much value as true information.  The paper challenged the work of a professor at Oxford University by the name of Floridi, who like most honest people, contends that, since information is data that changes what we do, only true information that helps us respond to our world accurately and effectively has value. 

When contacted by 9/11 researchers who suspected Fetzer of being a proponent and purveyor of false information, Floridi confirmed that Fetzer was effectively arguing for the use of false information.   Floridi responded that the arguments of Fetzer and his colleagues suggest that — “spreading and using false information (more precisely, misinformation, if the source is unaware of its falsity, or disinformation, if the source is aware and uses/spreads it on purpose, precisely because it is false) is perfectly fine and acceptable.”

Facts and evidence indicate that the use of false information to derail the 9/11 truth movement is a reality, despite the inability of leading 9/11 researchers to admit such a possibility.  With unsubstantiated claims of space beams, video fakery and holograms, Fetzer and his colleagues have taken advantage of the fact that many Americans are scientifically illiterate.  These evil parlor games give influential professionals like Robert Parry, who are already psychologically challenged and fearful of the topic, additional reason to ignore all the evidence and spout off about the issues with little or no understanding.  

Apart from Parry’s total disregard for evidence and his attacks against “truther” straw men, his hit piece against 9/11 truth is filled with blatant falsehoods.  Examples include his new, personal theory of “atrium failure” at WTC7, his claim that no one took airliner impact into account in the design of the towers (which the towers’ design engineer, John Skilling, did), and his claim that “much residue found after a major fire can be consistent with thermite.”  Unfortunately, for Parry, it’s not really important what is true because it’s all become just a game. 

The tenth anniversary of 9/11 is fast approaching and we can expect much of the same kind of games and disruption that we saw around the fifth anniversary, especially considering the calls for such disruption from within the Obama Administration.  The combination of emotionally-charged, evidence-allergic “journalism” from people like Robert Parry, and the continued support of known purveyors of false information like Jim Fetzer, gives the national discussion about 9/11 truth the potential to become an absurd theater of the damned.   Let’s hope that the audience sees through such theatrics and, in spite of the parlor game players, takes the time to consider facts and evidence.

The post Why Robert Parry is Right About 9/11 Truth appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

(Last October, I angered some on the Left by noting that the four previous examples of progressives trying to punish Democrats by sitting out elections or supporting third parties – 1968, 1980, 1994 and 2000 – didn’t work out very well, either in the short- or long-term. I meant the piece to be a historical review of these tactics but it apparently touched some raw nerves.)

Similarly, my brief criticism of the “truthers” prompted a wave of angry e-mails and blog postings. In part, I was accused of showing inadequate respect for the “truther” research and was scolded for not delving deeply enough into the intricate arguments behind their claim that 9/11 was an “inside job.”

But the truth is that I have devoted way more time to these preposterous notions than they deserve. And, since time is a zero sum game, every hour wasted on this strange parlor game means that real crimes and government wrongdoing get neglected. Still, there may be lessons to be learned here, though not the ones the “truthers” would want.

In following the curious twists and turns of the “truther” movement over the past nine years, I have become concerned that the anti-empiricism which has long infected the American Right has now spread to some quarters of the Left (although I realize that many on the Left reject the “truther” allegations as nonsensical and that some on the Right have embraced them.)

Indeed, if you were to teach a course on sophistry, you might wish to make a case study of the “truther” movement, which has deployed nearly every imaginable example of false logic, from the use of endorsements as a substitute for evidence to insistence that any miniscule doubt on one side of an argument requires its rejection while even the thinnest possibility on the other must be accepted as serious, if not true.

This kind of evidentiary game-playing is what I had grown accustomed to in dealing with the neoconservatives, such as their exaggerations of foreign threats, from the 1980s (when Nicaragua’s Sandinistas were a danger to the Panama Canal and Texas) through George W. Bush’s presidency (over Iraq’s WMD) and even to today (with worries about Iran’s nuclear program).

For instance, when Vice President Dick Cheney and the neocons were arguing for war with Iraq, they insisted that even a one percent possibility that they were right about Iraq sharing WMD with terrorists meant that their fear must be accepted as certainty, while the counterpoint that Iraq had no WMD had to be proven to some impossible 100 percent level. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “One Percent Madness.”]

Using such imbalanced – and irrational – constructs, in effect, predetermine the outcomes, since you can never prove something to 100 percent certainty and there is always a chance for some one percent feasibility on the other side. These loaded-dice arguments can lead nations into ill-conceived wars or persuade people of arguments that otherwise would be dismissed as crazy.

‘Truther’ Narrative

Though many “truthers” shy away from an explicit recounting of their presumed narrative – favoring instead “poking holes” in the official story – here is some of what they seem to believe:

Operatives working for President Bush wired 100-plus floors of the World Trade Center towers with explosives as well as the support structure of nearby Building Seven. They did all this – a complicated process that would have taken a large team of experts weeks and would have required extraordinary access to the buildings – without anyone seeing anyone doing any of this.

Then, when the two planes crashed into the towers on 9/11, Bush allowed them to burn for a while before deciding that the maximum psychological effect required that the buildings be brought down. So, the explosive charges were detonated remotely in sequential order from the top down.

After the fire and devastation spread next door to Building Seven, Bush’s team also detonated explosives there to bring down that smaller tower, presumably with the motive of destroying government documents that were located in offices there.

Meanwhile, in Washington, a third plane was approaching the Pentagon. Passengers onboard made frantic phone calls describing the hijacking. Plus, since the Pentagon is not in some secret location – it sits next to Interstate-395 and can be viewed from high-rises across the highway in Crystal City – some hundred or so people reported seeing the plane head into the Pentagon.

Some of the plane’s wreckage was strewn across the Pentagon grounds, and authorities later reported recovering the plane’s black box inside the Pentagon. But “truthers” insist that no plane hit the Pentagon; that Bush’s team attacked it with a missile.

However, nobody saw a missile. Nor would there be any way to explain the plane wreckage on the grounds, since nobody saw more Bush operatives driving around the Pentagon grounds planting fake pieces of the plane – even as emergency personnel and others rushed to the crash site.

To label the “truther” version of the 9/11 events nutty would seem an understatement – and there are other parts, including stuff about fabricated voice messages, that are arguably crazier. Indeed, the “truther” account has sometimes struck me as a parody meant to bring ridicule on more serious conspiracy investigations such as those into the JFK assassination.

As I pointed out in the earlier story – the one focused on Palin’s victimhood – there has not been a single witness (or document) emerging from the ranks of Bush’s supposed operatives to suggest that any of the “truther” narrative happened – even though the scope of this conspiracy would have required scores, if not hundreds, of participants.

Having covered many real government conspiracies in my career, I can assure you that there are always witnesses who speak for a variety of reasons: a guilty conscience, a boast to a girlfriend, a plea bargain when they get in legal trouble on something else.

In writing about Oliver North’s secret Iran-Contra network in the 1980s, our team at the Associated Press had two dozen sources. For our first Contra-cocaine story in 1985, Brian Barger and I had a similar number of sources, including documents from Costa Rica and a White House official describing a CIA analytical report on a Contra helicopter purchased with drug profits.

Yet for the “truther” conspiracy theory, more than nine years have passed and not a single witness has emerged who participated in planting the explosives floor by floor in the Twin Towers or carrying out the missile attack on the Pentagon or any other capacity that the conspiracy would have required.

Manufacturing a Case

Lacking any real evidence, like a knowledgeable witness or a government document, the “truthers” have built their case on alleged anomalies in the collapse of the buildings and on the shape of hole left in the side of the Pentagon. Though in all cases scientists and engineers have provided plausible explanations for these events, the “truthers” have tried to counter by marshalling their own supporters who are willing to challenge these analyses.

For instance, the “truthers” have long claimed that the collapse of Building Seven is the prima facie case for their conspiracy theory, especially, they say, its drop at near freefall speed. However, the speed of the collapse should not be all that surprising because Building Seven had a large atrium. Once the atrium’s supports were breached by the shock of the Twin Tower collapse and a resulting fire, Building Seven would logically fall into the open space at near freefall speed.

Similarly, the structure of the Twin Towers, with interlocking beams allowing them to have height without the weight of older skyscrapers, would have produced the falling in on itself effect once the beams were weakened by the impact of the planes and the heat from the fires.

However, since the events of 9/11 were unique – i.e. no one had tested flying fuel-laden passenger jets into buildings identical to the Twin Towers or the Pentagon – it is impossible to assess the various factors with 100 percent certainty. Thus, under the rules of the “truther” parlor game, the official analysis must be dismissed and a contrary analysis – however implausible – must be taken seriously.

On other points, the “truthers” have simply stretched the truth. For example, one “truther” claim was that they had discovered a residue of explosive thermite in the World Trade Center wreckage. However, when I checked their source, I saw that the claim was actually that the residue was consistent with thermite, not that it was thermite.

Much residue found after a major fire can be “consistent” with thermite, but beyond that, scientists noted that thermite doesn’t provide the explosive force for a building demolition. So, the “truthers” transformed their discovery into “nano-thermite,” a claim that is still making the rounds.

As for the Pentagon attack, the “truthers” claim that the aluminum wings of the plane would have cut a horizontal gash in the reinforced concrete walls of the Pentagon. Scientists, however, have explained that the angled-back wings actually would have compressed against the sides of the plane creating the more circular hole that was left.

But the “truthers” have claimed that the circular hole proved that Bush’s team had fired a missile into the Pentagon (though no one had seen such a missile.)

Similarly, evidence that al-Qaeda actually carried out the attack – that it was as Jon Stewart has said “an outside job” – must be rejected. Even confessions (or boasts) from al-Qaeda leaders must be thrown out because, the “truthers” insist, these admissions only resulted from torture (for those in U.S. custody) or from CIA fabrications (for those not in U.S. custody).

So, when Ayman al-Zawahiri issues one of his videos seated in front of a poster of the burning Twin Towers or when Osama bin Laden praises the hijackings, those statements must have been faked by the CIA – and you can’t prove to a 100 percent certainty that they weren’t, can you?

A Disinformation Campaign

My concern about the “truther” movement dated back to almost its origin. Because of the position of Consortiumnews.com as an Internet site which has investigated real conspiracies since 1995, I was in on many of the early e-mail exchanges regarding the 9/11 case.

Essentially, the discussion broke down this way: Some participants felt that Bush had demonstrated his arrogance and incompetence when he brushed aside warnings about a likely al-Qaeda attack. (This is the position that I personally feel is best supported by the available evidence).

A second group, however, took the same evidentiary frame and gave it a nasty twist, that Bush knew the attack was coming and “let it happen.” (Though I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to support this conclusion, this analysis at least has the benefit of some factual foundation.)

But there was a third group, which maintained that something more dramatic was needed, that Bush had so bamboozled the American people that they needed to be shocked out of their trance – and to do that required convincing them that “Bush made it happen.”

Perhaps, because of its splashier allegations, the “Bush made it happen” crowd — with claims about “controlled demolitions” and a “missile hitting the Pentagon” — emerged as the dominant force in the “truther” movement, eclipsing those who favored more targeted investigations into such areas as 9/11 funding and the role of Bush’s allies in the Saudi royal family.

These more extreme “truthers” started out with their “made it happen” conclusion and then assembled their case. That is the opposite of how real truth-seeking occurs (with the evidence first assembled and then objectively analyzed before any indictment is made).

Some on the Left have defended the “truthers” as at least well-meaning, since Bush’s administration was seen at the time as assaulting the U.S. constitutional republic and possibly creating an American-style fascism. The ends of disrupting Bush justified the means of spreading disinformation.

There was a sentiment, too, that Bush, Cheney and the neocons (who seemed to wish for something like another Pearl Harbor to justify their military interventions abroad) deserved a taste of their own medicine, even if the “truther” narrative was wildly implausible.

As the years went by, I would occasionally cross paths with “truthers” and listen to other arguments they made for their cause. Some felt that their movement was the “only” approach that was getting “traction” against Bush. Others claimed “9/11 truth” could be the impetus to get progressives to invest in media (something that I have long advocated).

Yet, these pitches were about achieving political ends, not about meeting the evidentiary needs of a serious investigation.

Indeed, at times, “9/11 truth” has taken on the feel of a political movement, if not a cult. One elderly historian told me that he had felt “pressured” by “truthers” to give them something that they could cite as an endorsement of their position. Other notable people on the Left have described meetings with “truthers” as akin to “recruitment” sessions.

So, despite the latest rash of angry e-mails, I repeat my advice in the wake of the Tucson massacre – that just as one would hope the Right would rein in some of its crazy allegations about President Barack Obama’s birth and its violent rhetoric against members of Congress, one might also expect that the Left would show similar care in its propaganda attacks on President Bush.

Update: On Sunday, in a profile of alleged Tucson gunman Jared L. Loughner, the New York Times reported that as “a curious teenager,” Loughner “became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government. …

“His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.”

Given how a mentally disturbed young person can process information (or disinformation), it is incumbent on all of us who speak in today’s public square to be responsible, especially when we make serious allegations like suggesting that Bush and the U.S. government “made” 9/11 happen.

The need for this careful behavior is true for the Right and it is true for the Left. The Center (including the mainstream press) also has a deep responsibility to examine suspicions of government wrongdoing when there is credible evidence and to have the courage to speak truth to power regardless of the pressures and consequences.

For the Center to renege on that duty (such as when the mainstream press attacked Gary Webb’s Contra-cocaine reporting in the mid-to-late 1990s) may be rationalized as “good for the country” in the short-term (by discrediting ugly truths) but whitewashing only feeds the public’s appetite for conspiracy theories on the Right and the Left.

In other words, to help avert future tragedies like the one in Tucson, all parts of the U.S. political/media system need to work better and take their responsibilities to the public more seriously. That would include not spreading wild accusations with weak or non-existent evidence, but it also would require holding Bush and his associates accountable for what they actually did.

Surely, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to decry (and investigate) what Bush did in office: his use of torture, his misleading the nation to war, his reckless tax cuts for the rich, his botched economic policies, and, yes, his failure to protect the country from the 9/11 attacks.

However, it doesn’t help the cause of accountability to make unfounded allegations against Bush – indeed it hurts. By floating unsubstantiated and bizarre claims about “controlled demolitions” and a “missile hitting the Pentagon,” the “truthers” actually make it harder to proceed with investigations into important areas of doubt about 9/11, like the financing and the Saudi role.

As for the crazy stuff, enough is enough.

Related Article: Robert Parry Decoupling From Reality

The post Robert Parry's 9/11 'Truth' Parlor Game appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Though the 9/11 evidence pointed to Bush’s incompetence in ignoring warnings and failing to stop al-Qaeda’s terrorist operation, some American leftists felt that it wasn’t enough to convince the people that Bush was simply a bonehead. The feeling was that Bush had so bamboozled the people that they needed to be shocked out of their trances by something bigger.

So, this small group brushed aside the evidence-backed narrative of Bush’s incompetence and even a competing interpretation of that factual framework, claiming that Bush had “let 9/11 happen.” Instead, this group insisted that the only way to wake up America was to make a case that Bush “made it happen,” that he was behind the 9/11 attacks.

To accomplish this feat, these activists, who became known as “9/11 truthers,” threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda’s involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they indeed had done it. The “truthers” then cherry-picked a few supposed “anomalies” to build an “inside-job” story line.

The “truthers” even recycled many of the Right’s sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence. These sleight-of-hand techniques obscured the glaring fact that not a single witness has emerged to describe the alleged “inside job,” either the supposed “controlled demolition” of the Twin Towers or the alleged “missile” attack on the Pentagon.

Some supporters of the “inside-job” theory may have simply been destabilized by all the years of right-wing disinformation. Reality and real evidence may have lost all currency, replaced by a deep and understandable distrust of the nation’s leaders and the news media.

Other “truthers” whom I’ve talked with view their anti-Bush propaganda campaign as a success because it injected some doubts among the American people about Bush. One told me that this was the only attack line against Bush that had gained any “traction.”

The post Robert Parry Decoupling From Reality appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.