Proposal for documenting dishonesty of prominent personalities in the 9/11 Truth Movement

Keenan's picture

I propose that a web site be set up specifically dedicated to compiling and documenting specific incidents of dishonesty by prominent personalities in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Perhaps a good format would be a Wiki style that would make it easy to be set up as a community effort in which lots of people involved in the truth movement would be encouraged to participate and update the content regularly. Of course, every claim would need to be verified and confirmed, and it would need to be as objective and unbiased as possible.

The basic idea is that a truth movement that is ostensibly dedicated to the searching for and exposing of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth should be held to a high standard of truth telling, and that people who are "leading" that movement, or who are prominent personalities in that movement should be held to account for their level of honesty or lack thereof, and not be allowed to get away with hypocritical behavior that can tarnish the truth movement and impede our progress of uncovering the truth. If one of these individuals has been caught engaging in a pattern of dishonesty, the rest of the truth movement should be made aware of it so that the truth movement can maintain its credibility as a truth movement, and so that disruptive and destructive individuals can be held to account and exposed to stop them from continuing to have undeserved influence within the movement.

Some issues that would need to be resolved:

1) who should have final say or ownership over the content?

2) How to ensure that it remains balanced and unbiased and that a group of disruptors are prevented from hijacking the site in order to either protect certain people or unfairly target certain people?

Considering the current state of disruptiveness and infiltration within the movement, I lean towards having one or a few people that I trust have ownership and ultimate final say over the content. Of course, total transparency regarding the standards and decision making procedures should be the goal.

What say you, truthers?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Keenan's picture

An example: FAIR documents Rush Limbaugh's lies

The Way Things Aren't: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895

[...]

Weird Science

LIMBAUGH: "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94)

REALITY: Nicotine's addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; "Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries," states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 "Medical and Health Annual."

LIMBAUGH: "We closed down a whole town--Times Beach, Mo.--over the threat of dioxin. We now know there was no reason to do that. Dioxin at those levels isn't harmful." (Ought to Be, p. 163)

REALITY: "The hypothesis that low exposures [to dioxin] are entirely safe for humans is distinctly less tenable now than before," editorialized the New England Journal of Medicine after publishing a study (1/24/91) on cancer mortality and dioxin. In 1993, after Limbaugh's book was written, a study of residents in Seveso, Italy had increased cancer rates after being exposed to dioxin, The EPA's director of environmental toxicology said this study removed one of the last remaining doubts about dioxin's deadly effects (AP, 8/29/93).

LIMBAUGH: "The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks." (Ought to Be, p. 135)

REALITY: A one in five AIDS risk for condom users? Not true, according to Dr. Joseph Kelaghan, who evaluates contraceptives for the National Institutes of Health. "There is substantive evidence that condoms prevent transmission if used consistently and properly," he said. He pointed to a nearly two-year study of couples in which one partner was HIV-positive. Among the 123 couples who used condoms regularly, there wasn't a single new infection (AP, 8/29/93).

LIMBAUGH: "Most Canadian physicians who are themselves in need of surgery, for example, scurry across the border to get it done right: the American way. They have found, through experience, that state medical care is too expensive, too slow and inefficient, and, most important, it doesn't provide adequate care for most people." (Told You So, p. 153)

REALITY: "Mr. Limbaugh's claim simply isn't true," says Dr. Hugh Scully, chair of the Canadian Medical Association's Council on Healing and Finance. "The vast majority of Canadians, including physicians, receive their care here in Canada. Those few Canadians who receive health care in the U.S. most often do because they have winter homes in the States--like Arizona and Florida--and have emergent health problems there." Medical care in Canada is hardly "too expensive"; it's provided free and covered by taxes.

LIMBAUGH: "If you have any doubts about the status of American health care, just compare it with that in other industrialized nations." (Told You So, p. 153)

REALITY: The United States ranks 19th in life expectancy and 20th in infant mortality among 23 industrialized nations, according to the CIA's 1993 World Fact Book. The U.S. also has the lowest health care satisfaction rate (11 percent) of the 10 largest industrialized nations

gretavo's picture

a couple of thoughts

We all know that "debunking" doesn't always involve telling the truth about something--that's why a better word for many debunkers is "rebunkers". With much of what Limbaugh says it's clear enough, but then how can we be sure that his debunkers don't in fact have their own agenda, and debunk him selectively, etc.

As far as the type of 9/11 resource you describe, well, sure--documenting dishonesty is part of the wiki project we're working on at http://wtcdemolition.com/wiki Speaking of which, I'd like to extend an invitation to registered users of WTCD to join in on the wiki-editing fun. This isn't intended to usurp what you're talking about Keenan, but I think it could be a valuable learning experience to have a bigger group of people here working on the wiki. If anyone is interested just let me know and I'll send you a password you can use with your existing login name to get in and start editing!

Jpass's picture

banned again?

Seems I've been banned from 911Blogger.com or something. I'm trying to log and / or get the password reminder function to work. No go.

I haven't gotten any response from LeftWright and any attempts to use the contact us form leave me stuck trying to figure out what the captcha image says.

Lillyann's picture

Hey jpass!

I hope it isn't true. I posted a reply to Suspicious Patriot just this morning and it got posted. Of course since I'm not good at arguing facts, I come off to them as a flakey-tinfoil hat flower child! They don't know that I fight bullets with roseflowers! So for now I remain a harmless (they think!) user.
I am looking forward to the site Adam Syed is talking about. It just may replace 911blogger!
Lillyann

Adam Syed's picture

Thank you.

Thank you.

juandelacruz's picture

I hope LeftWright will drop

I hope LeftWright will drop by and give a moderator's view of what is happening at 911Blogger.

I wonder if he has changed his position on the motivations and honesty of his co-moderators and the site's admin.