Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11
by Victoria Ashley
Version 1.1, August 5, 2007
The website PatriotsQuestion911.com makes a strong case for the important fact that hundreds of notable, credible, professional, and experienced people have serious questions about the official story of the 9/11 attacks. These include government officials, scholars, household-name actors, retired military officers, pilots, and even 9/11 family members, shown in rich color photographs and paired with quotes in their own words along with relevant links. Creator Alan Miller and others helping him have done a laudable job of tracking down and documenting these hundreds of individuals of note and presenting them in an appealing format for easy public understanding of the scope of concerns with the official story.
Unfortunately, the site currently also functions in a different and opposite way, albeit subtle. By presenting, directly alongside the serious and professional notable individuals, the advocates of ridiculous nonsense claims about the 9/11 attacks — space weapons, nukes, “TV fakery” and even holograms — the website functions to undermine a serious reader’s overall belief that the site, the community, and the individuals are actually as credible as their titles suggest. This is not an extensive criticism of the site, but a specific concern which can easily be corrected. Currently, individuals like Norman Mineta, Curt Weldon, Daniel Ellsberg and Richard Heinberg and placed on the same lists with Morgan Reynolds, David Shayler, Judy Wood and James Fetzer. Given the history of these individuals in the 9/11 community, such mixing serves the opposite purpose of the ostensible premise of the site.
If one actually clicks on the links of these last four individuals, listens to the talks, or reads the papers, there is no question that mixed with the real claims, the bizarre core of what they are advocating amounts to utter nonsense. If the reader is not already aware, here’s what they have presented to key audiences:
- On the day before the 5th Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Morgan Reynolds explained to a FOX News audience of millions:
“there are no big Boeing crashes . . . at all four events . . . what you will see is a fake, cartoon display . . .”
Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews; 9.10.06
- David Shayler explained to reporters at The Times, The Liverpool Echo, and in public appearances recorded on video, that the Trade Center jetliner crashes where faked using “missiles wrapped in holograms”, and that:
“‘ . . . there is little evidence to show that jets went into the buildings . . . Watch the footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Centre.'”
9/11 was an inside job says Shayler; by Paddy Shennan; January 22, 2007; The Liverpool Echo
- Judy Wood sent in her theory directly to NIST in the form of a legal document that energy weapons from space caused the destruction of the WTC Towers:
“I assert that NIST contractors, as listed in NCSTAR 1, including by way of non-exhaustive example, those listed below, either knew or should have known of the falsity of NCSTAR 1 as it relates to the use of directed energy weapons.”
Request for Correction per Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 SUPPLEMENT #2 to RFC submitted April 20,2007
- Jim Fetzer is the primary force behind publicity and press releases for the claims of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, advocating endless investigation into every possible scenario imaginable.
” . . . once [Fetzer] had become convinced that thermite/thermate could not explain the extent and character of the destruction, he began encouraging investigation of alternative hypotheses, including lasers, masers, and plasmoids.”
CBS PULLS “HATCHET JOB” ON SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH; February 1, 2007;
Yet, surprisingly, PatriotsQuestion911.com displays these people to the public as though they are serious professionals. Morgan Reynolds, for example, is presented with a glowing vitae of career accomplishments suggesting rock solid credibility, even though one click on a link provided brings a reader to questions about what “objects” hit the WTC Towers, and essays ridiculing Prof. Steven Jones, even calling him “retarded.”
Worse, perhaps, is the impact on 9/11 activists – the inclusion of these individuals without pause misrepresents them to new 9/11 activists who will naturally assume that these must be serious individuals. They will promote them to others, link to them on their myspace and facebook pages, in their forum postings and via their email lists. Eventually, ideas featured by these individuals — such as that real commercial jets never hit the WTC — can outrank sobre analysis exposing the core of the crime in search engine returns, persuading even people skeptical of the mainstream media’s objectivity that the 9/11 “conspiracy theorists” are indeed all nuts.
In this way, PatriotsQuestion911.com displays a classic example of discrediting by association — the bundling of those asserting extreme nonsense claims, with those making genuine, serious, and undeniable claims. The only ones to benefit from such bundling are those with an interest in the crime remaining covered up, unsolved and providing a rationale for endless war.
Read the rest of this article here.