August 04, 2016
Source: Bigstock
Anyone who doesn”t understand that Franken was being facetious and that the book is political satire is not right in the head. I mean that. There has to be at least some small amount of retardation present.
To be fair, there is one truther I genuinely like, and he doesn”t even call himself a truther. Ryan “Ry” Dawson is an independent blogger, activist, and documentarian. He’s appeared multiple times on Russia Today, Press TV, CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Show, and Al Jazeera. Ry and I don”t agree on much, but he’s an honest guy who always tries to back up his claims with well-researched facts. “I like 9/11 skeptic better than truther,” Ry told me recently. “I think the word “truth” is arrogant, and even if I think something is true I don”t call it “the truth.””
Ry represents a necessary evolution for “trutherism” if it wants to be taken seriously. Ry has tried to move 9/11 skepticism away from what it has, essentially, been up to this point: the exploitation of an observed supposed anomaly. “That building didn”t fall the way I think it should”ve; therefore, lizard men with lasers.” Ry eschews that type of fallacious nonsense. “I don”t see any problems with how the buildings fell,” Ry straightforwardly states.
No one hates the 9/11 kooks more than me. Yes, a plane did hit the Pentagon. I don”t really get into Building 7. Yeah, it fell symmetrically which is weird because the fire was asymmetrical, but I”m no pyrotech. The truther movement has attached itself to WTC 7, and they misinform people by saying there were only pockets of fire. This is not true. Sure, at 9:59AM there were only pockets of fire on the north side. And you can show that on film. But if you go forward seven hours that building was totally on fire. Plus it had part of another building fall on top of it. The southwest corner was gone.
Yes, many important things were housed in that building like the SEC. But there is no reason to blow up a building when you can just let it burn anyway. However, the official reason they let it burn (pull out of it) was because so many firemen had already died that day. And that building was already screwed. They didn”t want to risk any more loss of life. Both could be true. They didn”t want to risk life and they wanted that building to go. But I don”t like guessing at motives. I stay away from the “physics” of 9/11. I”m not a scientist. I just follow the paper trail and geostrategic interests.
Don”t think I can”t hear all of you typing “controlled opposition” into a comment. But before you click “post,” be aware that Ry sees Israel’s hand all over 9/11. He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to pointing the finger. And whether or not I agree with him is irrelevant. What matters is that he’s attempting to move 9/11 skepticism away from being a fad that targets the weak-minded with sleight of hand. “I think 9/11 was a joint covert operation like Iran Contra,” he summarizes. “Yes, it was Islamic radicals who physically did it, 100%. But they didn’t do it alone. Same as ISIS now.”
I can respect that. Ry’s overall case regarding the “paper trail and geostrategic interests” is far too complex to summarize here, so I recommend watching his magnum opus The Empire Unmasked (not available for free, but worth $20 if the topic interests you). Again, I”m not condoning or condemning his conclusions; I”m merely pointing out that he’s doing the work necessary to create a comprehensive theory, as opposed to speculating about death rays and thermite while smugly retreating to “I”m only asking questions” when cornered.
A few more Ry Dawsons and a lot fewer Alex Joneses, and there might just be hope for this “movement.”
