Taking Out The Trash - "Jews did 9/11"

I know of no credible evidence whatsoever linking anyone who is Jewish to the attacks on 9/11. Neither have I seen any highly convincing evidence that Israelis played a significant role. And yet you can't do a search for information on the subject of the attack without running into websites, videos, blogs, and books suggesting that Israel, the Jews, or a global Zionist conspiracy was responsible.

The quality of discussion on these topics certainly varies from intentional disinformation to those who honestly while, in my opinion, misguidedly feel that certain topics are worthy of long term academic review or broad public attention. The quality of fact varies just as much. At one extreme we have bigotry and at the other very fact based interest in the actions of the Mossad. Both are a small minority relative to movement participants and the wider public that this movement wants to reach. So it's important for us to be clear with ourselves and with one another about where we draw certain moral and strategic lines.

Disinformation

There is no doubt in my mind that a good deal of the anti-Semitism one can find at the fringes of the movement is intentional disruption. I make this claim based first on knowing that our government is investigating and infiltrating anti-war groups far less challenging to the system than we can be, and second that anti-Semitism has been quite effectively used to undermine our credibility and would therefore be an obvious way to do further damage. Eric Williams and his role in undermining the Arizona Conference is a telling example.

From my own perspective Eric Williams came out of no where and published a series of books about deep politics on topics such as 9/11 and 7/7. After having established some measure of credibility in the movement he took on a role coordinating a 9/11 truth conference in Arizona with other sincere movement activists. Then, just a few weeks before the conference, he published a book about Holocaust denial. The result was highly damaging to the event, those involved, and the movement itself. I have little doubt that Williams meant to undermine the movement. And I sincerely hope that's not true. I haven't heard much about him since.

Bigotry

Of course, a good deal of the anti-Semitism we find is simply home grown bigotry. Between %15 and %20 of the U.S. population have strong anti-Semitic views. And that's based on self reporting which necessarily involves a fair amount of dishonest response. The numbers are significantly higher in other Western countries.

For that reason we should expect to find those with anti-Semitic views in most social groups unrelated to Jewish culture. And if that is the case, it is certainly unfair to point to that overly vocal minority in this movement and suggest that it represents our cause. To do so would demonstrate a good deal of bias toward the movement as one could point that finger at just about any other group.

The point here is that, yes, there are people with anti-Semitic views who also concern themselves with 9/11 truth. But to suggest that these people in any way represent the movement is totally unjustified relative to the great majority of us who find these views abhorrent.

Essential facts?

The final group are those who have done research into the potential role of Israeli intelligence in the 9/11 attacks. There certainly are legitimate facts that support such speculation. And it would be irresponsible to suggest that critique of Israel itself is anti-Semitic. Academic freedom is an essential priority to me. And yet if those facts don't add up to much while they allow for significant misunderstanding a good deal of caution is necessary.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state a controversial opinion of mine. I believe that much, and certainly not all, of this "honest research" is founded is subtle forms of anti-Semitism. It's not what those involved would ever consider any kind of overt hatred. To put it as plainly as possible, it's comes down to not caring how Jewish people might feel about how information, speculation and opinion is presented. You might call it a cultural insensitivity.

I'm not talking about avoiding the truth because it would hurt someones feelings. But I simply can't find logical cause to focus much attention on a concern that offers the movement very little benefit while potentially insulting those who would otherwise support our cause.

I am NOT saying that everyone curious about this or concerned for a time with exploring the details is a bigot. I'm saying, based on the lack of strong evidence, that extended focus on the issue and its public promotion play into the hands of those who would like to undermine the movement, has the potential to alienate an entire cultural group from the movement, and is therefore not justified merely based on claims of academic rigor.

So this is more than anything else, and as always, about sticking to promoting the best facts we have. Sincere research into the potential role of Israel can certainly be conducted in a culturally sensitive manner. And yet that research does not appear to be very important to the movement's progress while certainly presenting some serious problems.

Avoiding Burnout - The "Big Tent"

"The 9/11 Truth Movement's Big Tent has functioned in a way that is antithetical to the process of science, as it does not recognize any process for invalidating theories." - Jim Hoffman

The big tent approach is one of the 9/11 truth movement's biggest pitfalls. This approach to activism is based on three basic premises: personal fallibility, the primacy of recruitment, and a disregard for the scientific method. In each case making people feel welcome in the movement is prioritized more highly than whether those people share core movement values, insights, and priorities.

Other social movement's such as the JFK assassination movement have been subject to the detrimental effects of this strategy and yet much of the 9/11 truth movement remains less than well informed about the present and potential problems caused by the adoption of this approach. There are even those who explicitly promote it, some of them knowing full well the detrimental effect it will have.

Many of us frustrated by the behavior of other activists and groups have dealt with those who passively or actively support the big tent strategy. Understanding a problem is the first step in dealing with it. So it's important for us to become familiar with why and how people justify their adherence to this approach.

"Everyone makes mistakes."

As 9/11 truth can take a significant psychological toll on us, we rely upon our movement peers not only for motivation but also for a certain level of emotional support. In the process we can develop feelings of affiliation and trust. No one likes to be criticized, and specifically not by people who we are turning to for a sense of shared purpose and optimism. For this reason it can be difficult to offer or accept constructive criticism.

And yet this movement requires critical thinking and a discerning approach to information and strategy. Progress is not achieved by advocating speculation or utilizing ineffective strategies. Everyone makes mistakes and so we should certainly be patient with those we trust, helping one another to develop a more nuanced understanding of the issues and more productive means of promoting our concerns.

Unfortunately, many are prone to limiting helpful critique in the interest of group solidarity. We might fear that our criticism will be viewed as disloyalty or cause a rift between people. We might feel that criticizing group leaders will undermine their authority. And yet without that criticism, factual and strategic errors will be repeated.

Our dedication to the movement must motivate us to speak up and make our concerns known. When we allow others to repeat mistakes we are participating in those mistakes. Respectful intervention is essential to movement progress.

"We need as many people as possible."

We all want the movement to grow. You can't have a movement without the people. And yet you also can't have a truth movement comprised of people who don't know what truth is, advocate concerns that greatly alienate others, or promote failing strategies. A great deal of unproductive behavior is tolerated because many believe that quantity is more important than quality when it comes to helping the movement grow.

The idea that we should have "civility & fraternal feeling towards all pro-truth voices" as Kevin Barrett has put it, is not practical or responsible. There are many reason for this, not the least of them being the fact that there are people trying to infiltrate and undermine the movement from within. When new people join our groups or discussion forums we should pay attention to their general level of sanity, their motivations, and the information they advocate. Without any sense of healthy motivations, practical strategies, and the boundary between fact and speculation we allow the movement to develop without any clear definition or boundary lines.

The idea here is not to purge the movement of those who disagree with us about specific facts or strategies. Those kinds of disagreements are healthy as they result in debate which tends to help the movement progress and adapt to changing circumstance and diverse audiences. But the movement has no need for bigots, extremists, or sociopaths. And only if we are paying attention to who we are working with will we be able to prevent these people from falsely or poorly representing the nature of our movement.

"Nothing can really be proven."

Whether due to ignorance or intentional disruption there are a number of people, websites, and groups in this movement that advocate speculation that is without logical merit or has been adequately disproven. And one of the primary methods used to maintain their inclusion in the movement is to blur the line between fact and speculation. As we can't prove that 9/11 was an inside job they suggest that anything unproven should be left on the table for public consideration.

This obscures an important fact. The primary basis for the movement's assertion of complicity or need for further investigation is very well founded documentary evidence. The movement also includes a lot of more ambiguous evidence that had not been effectively ruled out by some of the more flimsy aspects of the official story. But the assertion that we must continue to debate or worse yet promote speculation that has been effectively refuted by available facts is totally unacceptable.

The movement can't thrive without a definition. And central to the definition of this movement is an understanding and respect for empirical truth. The scientific method is key to the success of this movement as it is in our most logical reasoning that we are able to upend the official story and bypass the bias and skepticism of many of those who refute our claims. Central to the scientific method is attempting to disproves one's own hypotheses. That approach must inform movement strategy as it should be only the most well founded evidence that we put forward for public scrutiny.

I'll end as I began with a quote from Jim Hoffman.

"The fact that these values closely parallel the egalitarianism, tolerance of diversity, and coalition-building championed in populist and progressive social movements makes them difficult to criticize. However, unlike the application of these values to people in traditional social movements, the 9/11 Truth Movement's Big Tent applies them to ideas. Conflating the respect due people with the respect due ideas is a fundamental error at the heart of the Movement's failure to break into the mainstream thus far."

About The Author

My name is Julian. Back in 2003 I saw The Truth and Lies of 9/11, a video of a lecture by Mike Ruppert which he gave on the subject six weeks after 9/11. I couldn't have had a better introduction to the subject as he avoided discussing speculation and laid out a clear case for complicity using documentation to specify who had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crime.

I spent the next couple years reading about 9/11 and doing enough research to understand the contradictory theories for myself. In 2005 a colleague and I started TruthMove after leaving our local 9/11 truth group due to counter-productive leadership. Our organization is dedicated to informed consent, valid history, and independent journalism, and is therefore not exclusively focused on 9/11 truth. However, our concern for 9/11 has been very prominent in our action.

Since it's inception those involved in TruthMove have put a fair amount of effort into promoting the 9/11 truth movement and it's core facts. We created an educational website. We did regular street action all over the city with a large banner sign, handing out flyers that promoted the facts and our website. We helped organize the 9/11/05 march in NYC. We organized a general strike in 2007 that included 9/11 truth and was endorsed by Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. All positive experiences.

But then our efforts in the movement began to become more internally responsive than externally promotional. As infiltrators, debunkers, bigots, and dupes began to overwhelm the movement we tried very hard to stem the tide. We published a disinformation page on our website. We exposed the distribution of hate literature by Les Jamieson, the director of our local 9/11 truth group. We helped expose the publication of a book on Holocaust denial by Eric Williams, at the time organizing a large movement conference. We challenged movement figures such as Kevin Barrett for promoting the 'big tent' strategy. We countered the partisanship and xenophobia of Alex Jones. We made an effort to prevent Steve Alten from profiting off the movement with "The Shell Game." And we published the 2008 Declaration of 9/11 truth Standards and Strategies.

Since then I have moved home to Los Angeles from New York City and begun to find new ways to promote 9/11 truth with a focus on both external promotion and internal critique. Without that balance I wouldn't be able to continue participating.