I think I finally figured something out...

OK, so this could all be hangover cynicism talking, but hang with me. I think I have fnally figured out why even normally sympathetic/progressive/net-based news sites and journalists will not touch the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Now, we all know why the mainstream will not touch it. That's fairly obvious. The right wing mainstream media considers anything that paints El Presidente in bad light as liberal propaganda in the first place, and as for the supposed left wing mainstream (more accurately, neo-liberal. Eris I hate how political meanings have been warped by media discourse) are part of another conspiracy entirely, that of keeping the status quo dynamic. The 9/11 Movement, true or not, represents a narrative dangerous to the staus quo, and so is ignored as much as possible, in the same way any political opinions outside of the liberal/conservative framework are.

But these smaller, more politically aware news networks, what about them? After all, many of them espouse viewpoints quite frequently which lay on the outside of American politics. So why would they avoid such a topic?

Its because 99% of the 9/11 Truth Movement are pure, unadulterated, assholes.

Lets put it this way. Since they have started to put on protests and organize themselves (its come a long way since Loose Change) they have managed to get mentions on some alternative news outlets. Most of it has been critical, it must be said. Some has been derisory, to be sure. But instead of stating their arguments, in considered and careful ways, building pieces of evidence upon others and building a theory of what actually happened that day, most prefer instead to repeat some "factoid" about the tower collapse and then brand the person in question as a secret dupe of the power elites and a moron at best, or a willing agent and gatekeeper of the media at worst. No matter their past record for standing up to the powers that be.

For example, consider the cases George Monbiot, Noam Chomsky and Matt Tiabbi, all journalists with a long history of considered thought and political agitation, in one form or another. The minute they disagreed with the 9/11 Truth Movement, for whatever reason, they are labelled as controlled assets of some nefarious hidden power.

Way to show intelligent and reasoned debate, guys. You sure showed everyone else you aren't a crackpot fringe movement, with your excellent command of logical argument. Aren't smear campaigns pretty much what the likes of President Bush and Tony Blair get up to, when they dont like someone?

That is precisely the problem with dealing with these people. If you disagree, you will be buried under a mountain of accusation, slurs and lies. Not to mention shrill and threatening emails. What sort of journalist wants to put up with that sort of shit, especially when he or she can cover topics which don't consider them accessory to what, if its true, would be one of the biggest crimes in modern history?

There is also the other thing...an entire mountain of data you have to plow through, and analysis of said data being done by people who are not experts in the field. Look, when it comes to engineering, I don't take anything as a common sense argument. At all. My father was an engineer, and while my math skills are adequate enough to keep up, when someone goes through and explains things, before then I take nothing for granted, because most engineering is only expected to work within certain parameters. So when people say "obviously this isn't true because the towers would... its not actually that obvious. Explain. With reference to past examples. You know, do some research. Common sense and physics do not always make great bedfellows, depending on the common sense of the individual in question.

And there is so much data out there. And conflicting data, from debunkers, that to actually look at it all and come up with a reasoned conclusion would require months of research. I know, I thought I could skim read the topic myself, a while back. Oh poor deluded me.

Anyway, its time for coffee and ibuprofen again. One saving grace of my blog readership is that it is probably small enough to avoid a legion of 9/11 Truther's descending on this place and painting me as a paid shill of the Conspiracy (I wish. When I did work, indirectly, for the RAND Corporation, all they paid for was my coffee bill for the afternoon meetings). I hope people will note I actually avoided talking about the truth of the 9/11 conspiracies, because that is not what I am questioning here. Its the conduct of the believers of these conspiracies and how their actions alienate them from pretty much everyone, forcing them into a paranoic mindset where the world is filled with enemy agents, instead of disgruntled journalists who don't want the hassle of having to deal with thousands of assholes.