Things are getting moving again over at the main 9/11 Cultwatch site.
A new article on the danger of conspiracy theories, but in particular the 9/11 "truth" movement has been written by Duncan Money.
Here's a link to the article. If you want to comment on it, your views are welcome on this blog.


The proof of any conspiracy isn't whether a government has collapsed or world capitalism fallen. Even in Bolshevik Russia a member of Lenins Central Committee who became the leader of their parliamentary group ended up being a double agent and this was only found out when the revolution occurred and the secret files were released. Lening defended him prior to the revealing of this.
Your thesis is that 9/11 could not have been organised by the US government because we do not essentially have access to state archives. But the primary aim of any conspiracy is who profits and who gains. By all accounts 9/11 was required to have a shift in geopolitical emphasis away from the anti-communist crusades of the previous 4 decades to the 'war on terror'.
The leadership of movements does not determine whether 9/11 truth is a valid issue and if it is not. You seem to be arguing that the unelected leaders of 9/11 truth must determine what millions believe the world over. Malinovsky was an agent and was criticised as such by opposition parties to Lenin. Did that stop the Russian Revolution?
For your line of arguing to become convincing and I have not reason to doubt that such 'leaders' who arrive on the scene at the last minute must be doing it for some other purpose, you have to show how the inconsistencies of the events of the day (Three Towers Collapse) actually prove your point.
You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because of who currently 'heads' 9/11 truth in the UK!
Posted by: conspirator | December 03, 2007 at 01:45 PM