Mr. Marrs, What Happened to the "9/11 Truth Movement?"

Mr. Marrs...

First let me say that I very much enjoyed your book, "The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty," and feel it's measure by which all other 9/11-conspiracy books and videos should be compared.

That being said, I'm sure your keeping up with events among the various splinters of the "9/11 Truth Movement" and I have one rather broad question regarding the evolution of this self-proclaimed "Truth Movement."

Here we stand, on the eve of the month of the six-year anniversary of the event that defines our era, and the rather lofty selfless goals of those early "Truth Movement" dreamers are fragmented into a confusing mess of competing groups with disparate messages that promote contrasting, even contradictory, theories.

We have twenty-somethings seeking to construct personality cult status.

We have overbearing bull-horn bearing my-way or the high-way super stars.

We have angry spittle spewing black shirted activists scaring the tourists in NYC.

We have grainy over-compressed digital videos presented as "evidence" for nothing.

We have a mash-up of plane huggers, no planners, TV fakery, pod people, MIHOP, LIHOP, exotic weaponry, holographic, Stockholm syndrome, alien cult, nose out, squibb shooting, nuke blowing, remote control, actors, fakers, and effects bakers. And now, it seems we have the rise of the 9/11 Conspiracy Super Stars.


What do you think of the evolution of this movement?


1) Do you consider it possible that the current divisive atmosphere is a desired outcome of a focused conter-intelligence and misinformation strategy?

2) Or perhaps we're just seeing the effect of Internet discussion board "one-upmanship" as applied to a wildly popular conspiracy theory.

3) Or, do you see some other catalyst that has brought us to this counter-productive point?

And in all the madness that is "9/11 Truth," it seems the one clear angle that points to "inside job" is being completely ignored -- we still haven't caught the guy we fingered. Perhaps that topic just isn't as sexy as every video of the event having been faked.

First off let me say that what i think is happening is that no one who could do anything wants to hear about, or has any respect for the truth movement today. Im not saying the movement is wrong. But it is flawed in that street protests and catching politicians off guard in subways is funny and needed. It doesnt do the hard work..we need congressional hearings, an open years long if needed calm debate atmosphere.

I dont expect Bush to go quietly. And I think he deserves a cozy cell right now along with his buddies, since they jumped ship, maybe they will get eaten by sharks so to speak.

They have done great good though for america, in the context that is, of the lie the cia and fbi and white house along with corrupt officials that run the gammut for the years previous created for us.. the lie being corporate whores everywhere.

Why does america remind me more and more of a nation taken over by cruel killer thugs?..because our masters, pretend to be our slaves, long enough to sieze our sovereignty and sell it to the queen, or china or whatever king slut from wherever chooses to get in on the subverting of this nation, filled with people more noble and self sacrificing than any of the other nations combined, and used by leaders who in selfish game, send them to die to protect the evil at the top, who corrode existence. Like fools..

This has taken my thoughts about the 9/11 truth movement and its flaws and perfectly presented them.
As I have said in many threads. The largest hurtle is the fact that there isn't one perfect theory or even two, a theory that take aways the things that do not make sense. Peoples minds are won and lost on this fact. Is it Disinfo? is it just as any other conspiracy, filled with opinions rather then facts.

I look forward to this thread.

Rgds

I think the truth movement simply lost steam. I mean that basically, they were anticipating the end of freedom and the rise of a police state in a matter of 5 or so years. Looking at it 6 years later, we are further from a New World Order then before 9/11.

Of course, on the other hand, I heard a nice quote on Coast to Coast last night:

"Put a frog in boiling water an he'll jump out, but slowly raise the temp and he'll quietly boil" Or at least something like that.

I will, God willing, get into their inner circle one day, then back stab them and reveal all and everything hidden from us, if there is anything.


Edit:
I mean, we are further from a peaceful and willing NWO then before 9/11. We are close to a NWO of governments, but we are further now from the people accepting unity.

[edit on 1-9-2007 by Gorman91]

Yet another great topic by another broad thinker. Something I've always wondered is...have we past the truth? Are we just falling into a deeper lie made by the people who want to convince us of the so very slipper truth?

Sort of like those cops on shows that KNOW a criminal did the deed, but has no real, subtantial proof...and so then...they frame the guy...planting the clues along the way...doing so until the truth is as much a lie.

DAMN! I wish I knew...

reply to post by sdrawkcab


I don't know, I still think the gov just knew it would happen, and let it so they could use it.

To put it in a real world example:

Suppose you have a coastal house.
Why spend money on tools to log down trees if the drift wood on the beach is perfectly good?

If the people were just let in, it saves you jumbo $$$$.

SO,

The one thing I can't figure out is HOW the most absurd theories get propelled to the front and then muddy all logical debate in these areas. You can find this scenario occurring in the JFK arena, in the 9/11 arena, etc. Why are tremendously assinine theories the ones that rise to the top of the activity list? For instance, why did any one ever spend more than the time to say "I don't think so" on a theory there were no planes that flew into the towers? Why is it that ridiculous claims tend to get MORE debate time than discussing points that really beg for answers? I think your example of the theory every darned video and pic of 9/11 was faked would be the epitome of an extremely ludicrous theory that has had way too much time dedicated to it. And I just don't understand how the phenomenon happens (repetitively).

I'd really like to see what Mr. Marrs has to say on this, but an interesting discussion is being sparked that might give him some additional feedback.

Originally posted by Valhall
The one thing I can't figure out is HOW the most absurd theories get propelled to the front and then muddy all logical debate in these areas.

I think we have a "perfect storm" of items that have combined to bring us to our fractured state of divisiveness.

1) Attention Seekers: There's no shortage of people at various points in their "15 Minutes" seeking to get face-time or name-recognician associated with particular theories, or the movement in general.

2) Digital Egoists: Related to the "attention seekers," these are the bloggers and forum denizens engaged in the traditional tit-for-tat oneupmanship of online exchanges... the ego of these people cannot stand to "loose" an online debate and continually escalate the rhetoric into absurd areas.

3) Inexperienced "Researchers:" There's also no shortage of people claiming to be "9/11 Researchers" who first became interested in conspiracy speculation because of 9/11. For the most part these people have no basis of understanding of the mechanics of previously confirmed conspiracies, do their "research" entirely online, and have a fatal inexperience with the core "evidence" (a heavily compressed YouTube video would never be evidence in a court of law, but somehow is good enough to claim hundreds of people contributed to a conspiracy that killed thousands).

4) Vocally Gullible Netizens: And here we have the "in the trenches grunt" that makes the first three possible, people who are smitten by the cult of personality built up around the #1, or convinced by the passion of the #2, or taken in by the poor conclusions of the #3. Then they populate the web with their blogs, threads, and websites.

5) Unknown Provocation/CounterIntel: And within any of these previous four items can be an element of purposeful disinformation, misinformation, agent provocateurs, and counter intelligence initiatives... the element could range from subtle steerage to outright theory creation... we don't really know for sure.

Why is it that ridiculous claims tend to get MORE debate time than discussing points that really beg for answers?

Because, for those in the above categories, the more extreme and provocative theories get more attention and controversy... and for the #1 and #2 personalities, controversy is important.

I want to mention 1 more group of people you forgot SO.

I would like to add this group.

People who really don't care what kinda theory is out there as long as the truth gets out group.

This group like myself and a few others that I know really are not interested in what hologram hit WTC or what alien space beam took out the towers to be vaporized or whatever crap that is.
We are the people that know for the instance of looking at the towers collapse or the fact steel don't melt or weaken under circumstances brought by what happened on 9/11.

Or in my case watching the news and hearing of a 911 call that never got mentioned on mainstream news and seeing a tiny hole for a big ass plane in the ground.

We are the common sense type people who think with all common logic that something is not right wit what happened on 9/11. If they say it happened the way they say then show us without leaving us with more questions than answers.

Anyway I am done.. I can add more to this but I wont.. you guys get the idea.

[edit on 9/2/2007 by ThichHeaded]

The answer to the question is simple, nothing happened.

Everything stands as a data base. Strange theories are subject to philosophical "suspended judgment." The important things are very clear such as the fact that building 7, the Salomon building collapsed in its own footprint, and there is no explanation. Is it implausible to say "the diesel fuel ignited," when it takes oxygen just to ignite it, and much more of that and other things to make a building collapse?

A "truth movement," is exactly what it says it is, people who seek the truth. September 11, 2001 happened and it was immediately glossed over and blamed on convenient "terrorists." Immediately an extremely profitable war economy and security state was constructed.

Most people who doubt the official story have good reason and precedent on their side for other events that have entered the "conspiracy theory," model. Such a term tends to discredit people who articulate it, but when there's a court case upon who are lead to believe they are humble peons, a conspiracy theory is a mean prosecution. That we accept the dichotomy appears as an Orwellian contradiction, one that attempts to render the people in their own mind's eye as "powerless." That is ever apart from the case.

On people who seek attention and those who "lose debates," it made me chuckle that Gallileo sure found attention but lost the debate before the church but his science did not. That is why I remember the point of "suspended judgment," and how it is critical to the process of continuing to sort through all data, and to address those things, and move for the best solutions. On the silly theories, well they are out there and it is just as ridiculous to block these things out of your thoughts as it would be to ask oneself "don't think about purple dragons with wet suits." Such creatures would then be all you think about.

On the other hand such "nonsense," as holographic airplanes is actually a not implausible technology. That it most likely did not happen on 911 is broad based. We have enough to think about on many other points of clear proof. When you have a story board that includes all the data, you do not have to believe in all of the panels of data, but you go with the special moments of insight.

Well that's my argument.

I speculate that Jim Marrs may agree with most of what everyone has said here but let's hear from him soon.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by SkipShipman]

The part I like the most is where you said..."We are the common sense type people..." Throughout my 19 years of living, I have clearly seen that common sense is not as common as it should be. Conspiacry or not, the truth of such things should always be known. Whether we like it or hate it...the truth defines what is real to perspective, without it...what is real?

All I know is that my Dad saw the planes, I saw the smoke, and I was there when it happened (a few miles way, yes, but still watching). Now I know me or my dad didn't get paid off by the gov to say that it happened, because why would I spend hours on forums? If the gov paid me, I'd want millions, and I wouldn't be spending hours on the computer with that money

Oh...yeah...we all saw the planes hit the towers. Thousands of people were actually there...millions saw it on Television & internet. The vids were real. But that's all we saw...nothing else!

Howdy SkepticOverlord,

For me, what is happening in the 9/11 research community is déjà vu all over again. I saw the same pattern of dissention created within the JFK assassination research community over the years.

You asked:

1)Do you consider it possible that the current divisive atmosphere is a desired outcome of a focused counter-intelligence and misinformation strategy?

2) Or perhaps we're just seeing the effect of Internet discussion board "one-upmanship" as applied to a wildly popular conspiracy theory.

3) Or, do you see some other catalyst that has brought us to this counter-productive point?

My answer is yes, all of the above. It works like this:

First, you have your “aginers,” that’s folks who will be argue against just about anything. Next, you have your people seeking notoriety to boost their own ego. Then, you have people who are so committed to being objective that they lose sight of the forest for concentrating on the trees. You also have your well-intentioned but superficial thinkers who get hung up on one theory or the other and will defend their pet theory against all challenges. Behind all these folks are your disinformation agents. Some of these agents are in it for the pay, others are being blackmailed by higher authorities, some do it because of long service to some organization and some just for the fun of it. These folks generally do not have to be ordered to create dissention, they already know how and when to create havoc and start fights between legitimate investigators.

In the JFK assassination, and even more so with 9/11, there has been no lack of evidence to contradict the official story, quite the opposite. There has been no cover-up in the classic sense of hiding evidence. Rather, in both cases, the cover-up involves obfuscation, so much contradicting evidence that it confounds and confuses investigators. In the case of 9/11, there is much evidence to indicate the use of exotic technology being used to bring down the WTC towers. What perfect cover. If a technology is used that is not known to the public than any sort of cover story can be concocted without the fear of credible contradiction.

The disinformation game is to get any research community sufficiently conflicted so that the public, through the corporate-controlled mass media, only hears of the squabbling, backbiting and the most preposterous theories. With no common agreement, there can be no groundswell of public demand for justice.

When your computer is given conflicting commands, it freezes up and shuts down. Likewise, when the average human is confronted with conflicting theories and evidence, they freeze up and shut down. “I don’t want to hear anymore about that,” is a common response. In fact, I sometimes think that almost half the population of this country falls into that category.

In the JFK assassination case, virtually all serious researchers agree that (1) Oswald did not act alone (2) this means a conspiracy was behind the president’s death and (3) the fact that documented cases of suppression of evidence, destruction of evidence, fabrication of evidence and intimidation of witnesses (all criminal acts under our legal system) can all be traced to individuals with the Federal Government of the United States elevates this Texas homicide to a national; coup d’etat.

In 9/11, the documented failure to heed numerous warnings about an impending attack (coupled with actions within the Clinton and early Bush administrations to actually block investigations into al Qaeda), the confusion of war game exercises scheduled for the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 (to include scenarios of hijacked planes being flown into the WTC), the pre-attack short selling of stock indicating foreknowledge of the attacks traceable to persons connected to the CIA, the close business and social connections between the bin Laden and Bush families, the hasty removal of WTC debris (evidence) and the manipulation of all official investigations by the Bush administration all point to complicity, an inside job --- at the very least --- by high officials within the Federal Government.

Jim Marrs

I think SkepticOverlord brought up some excellent questions on the current state of the 9/11 Truth movement and thanks Mr. Marrs for your comments on this.

As someone who only recently has read over the 9/11 Truth information (i'm a complete newbie), including viewing those numerous video's on You Tube, I can say that I'm very annoyed with those 'truthers' who have veered off into La La Land making outrageous, ridiculous claims that are even more ludicrous than The Official 9/11 version supported by our gov't.

I'm talking about Dr. Fetzer's group where the thought crossed my mind that they were gov't disinformation agents due to the absurdity of some of their claims. But then a little later, I was to find out that this group was one of the original 9/11 truth movement orgs formed! So I have to admit that I'm very confused by all of this and I can't see how Dr. Fetzer cannot see how his belief's and those of his followers are not damaging the Truth movement in some very significant ways now.

I'm sure he's got to know this but apparently this doesn't seem to matter to him. So I agree with you that there are some people in this movement who are putting their own ego's ahead of the movement itself at the expense of getting the message out there to the general public that 9/11 was an inside job.

If only he could have stuck with the more conservative version he previously believed in which is still being promoted by Steven Jones and the majority of 'truthers' just for sake of a unified front to see another independent 9/11 investigation take place.

But now he seems to be almost sabotaging any possibility of this by supporting views we can be sure the general public will not believe in --
in any way, shape or form -- let alone even consider.

The long and the short of it is, it's enough for 'truther's' to try to sway the uninformed that 9/11 was an inside job, but now that there are so many conflicting views on what happened that day within the movement itself, this makes it all the more difficult to do that.

If some of them could just keep their new views to themselves and instead focus exclusively for a new independent investigation, this would be the first step in making some real headway in finding out what happened six years ago on 9/11. Too much time has passed by already...

If anyone wants to set me straight on what I just said in my last post here, be my guest! I'm still in the process of reading up on everything about the 9/11 Truth movement so I'm sure I only know the basics now on what's been going on with it.
Maybe I'll learn something new. Having said this, I do admit that I need to read up more on Fetzer's views to be able to formulate some final conclusions if I can even take them seriously or not -- but rest assured, I will only be presenting the Steven's and Griffin's' version to those whom I plan to inform that the 9/11 Official version is nothing but a cover-up and for them to read up on that.

Will read Mr. Marrs book on 9/11 as I'm interested in finding out his views on this too.

[edit on 10-9-2007 by Palasheea]

Howdy Palasheea,

My thoughts on the 9/11 Truth Movement are simply this: There is no such thing as a bad theory. Obviously, some are better than others but any theory in the face of suppression of evidence should be considered.

Having said that, nothing that cannot be substantiated by hard evidence or solid attribution should be batted around in public. The long-suffering public is confused enough by trying to decide who to believe --- the official government theory of 9/11 or the thousands of "truthers" who have actually studied the facts and evidence. There is little benefit in confusing them further with arguments over the melting point of structural steel, holographic airplanes and satellite weapons. While such issues are most interesting, they cannot be proven and therefore should be left out of the public debate until there is an open, honest and in-depth investigation into the suppressed truth of the 9/11 attacks. Such issues should be debated and studied in private by dedicated invesigators until enough evidence has been gather to deem some sort of public disclosure appropriate.

Jim Marrs

I believe the truth movement lost its way early on. It was lost the minute it collectively decided it needed to speculate, and then prove correct, an alternative theory to the official story.

The point is not to have the winning theory, but to challenge the powers that be to answer the questions, to fill the gaps, to address the inconsistencies, incongruities and the outright contradictions that have not been addressed.

The point SHOULD BE to demand the answers to the questions that beg answers - not create the speculative answers to those questions and then try to do the same thing the government did (i.e. force all data to either support the theory or reject it based solely on it contradicting a given answer).

Simply put - many moons ago - the truth movement lost its way when it stopped asking for the truth in lieu of demanding data to prove its pet theory (whatever that given group's theory is).

[edit on 2-4-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
I believe the truth movement lost its way early on.

As early as the first meeting, we might surmise. That very first moment where they spray-painted "9/11 Inside Job" over their placards protesting the World Bank, was the beginning of what went wrong.

Activists don't desire truth. Activists don't want justice. They want to disrupt as a method for promoting their "ideals".

Howdy Mister.Old.School,

Thank you for your input and you have put your finger on a most important fact regarding the 9/11 Truth Movement -- namely, that it is more filled with activists than serious researchers.

I became aware of this in working with Alex Jones. Initially, as a journalist, I was somewhat put off by Alex's antics (yelling, shouting and bullhorning). But after working with the man on several occasions I came to realize that I am a journalist and he is an activist. He has never claimed to be a journalist. With that understanding, I can now see past Alex's antics and focus on his evidence and material, which is for the most part legitimate and credible. I now know that Alex is a man driven by the desire for truth and justice, an admirable trait despite some of his tactics.

What needs to happen in regards to 9/11 is a concerted and mass effort to demand an honest investigation, complete with subpeona powers and conducted fully in the open. Many of us tried this in the months following 9/11 by sending reams of material and evidence to the then-New York attorney general and urging the convening of a grand jury since it was in that jurisdiction. But nothing came of that except that the attorney general soon became governor of New York State --- Eliot Spitzer. Now you see what has come of that. How he expected to write an op-ed article in the Washington Post (Feb. 14, 2008) exposing the Bush administration's complicity in the mortgage collapse and subsequent economic slump and expect to escape retaliation is beyond me.

Jim Marrs