But if you like to believe this guy then apparently it is.
This is Debunking 9/11.
I guess since PNAC's website is (as of 1/7/08) suspended it must be proof.
At least in conspiracy theory land.
Take this interesting snippet for example:
"debunking9/11.com is a very sophisticated, extensive and professionally put together website that clearly has had a lot of expensive expertise poured into it. It goes to extraordinary lengths to attempt to debunk the evidence that has presented itself on the internet over the last seven years as an alternative to the US government’s version of the events of 9/11, but – and this is where the site gives itself away – it doesn’t attempt to debunk just some aspects of the new evidence that has been presented, but it tries to debunk every bit of it. It is that characteristic that defines it as a propaganda site rather than a site that is scientifically objective with its arguments."So according to this Mr. Lataan, (the name given on the profile) the evidence that makes Debunking 9/11 a shill propaganda site is:
- Looks professionally done
- Debunks all of the "evidence" given by "truthers".
It really seems that the NWO and PNAC have gone downhill, what with PNAC not having the money to keep their website going, and making a propaganda website that seems to have been made from a template.
Funnily enough Debunking 9/11 doesn't debunk everything. It only debunks the more common claims. It doesn't cover Judy Wood's space beams, or really anything from Christophera.
But I guess, if I start up a website (hypothetically) somewhere near the start of all this rubbish, I would have been able to write quite a bit since the "truth" movement is a very static one with little new information entering into it.
Or this bit:
"But what really gives it away is the rhetoric and tone of the narrative, which is presented in a pseudo-technical pseudo-academic way, but which is transparently intermingled with outright neoconservative propaganda which has nothing to do with the events of 9/11."Which he decides to give an example:
"Take, for example, this on the ‘Osama bin Laden’ page of their website:Oh dear.
“Conspiracy theorists like to say ‘Some Arabs with box cutters couldn't have pulled this off.’ Let's forget for a minute how racist that statement is”.
Firstly, of course, one needs to ask; what conspiracy theorists like to say ‘Some Arabs with box cutters couldn't have pulled this off’? Trying to cast those that doubt the US government’s official version of the events of 9/11 as ‘racists’ is a classic neoconservative tactic used because of the connotations of the word ‘racist’ has with ‘anti-Semitism’."
I wonder how logically sound it is to argue "he's making strawmen" by using an argument from ignorance.
Once again we go to the Debunking 9/11 FAQ:
"Q: Most of your arguments seem to be strawmen. Why do you attack arguments I'm not making?But to answer my fellow croweaters question, why not take a look,Comment 8 here, here, or here.
A: There are arguments some web sites make which others do not. Just because you haven't seen the argument on your favorite conspiracy site doesn't mean there aren't those who make it. (Read: logical fallacy) If the topic doesn't apply to you, then just skip it and go on to the next. "
As you can see, quite a few conspiracy theorists like to say that. Just because you don't or your specific group don't does not, as the FAQ extract pointed out, does not mean that nobody else does.
To be honest, the rest of the post in question is nothing more then complaining, wild accusations (how is he attacking Jones or Griffin?) and the standard "the webmaster is being paid to do this".
Honestly, if there is such an all powerful government, then why haven't they taken out all of the "truthers" in the US? Why would they have to pay people to make sites like this when they could just as easily and cheaply take down the sites?
This is another thing that I don't expect any "truther" to answer.
Update: Welcome people from Debunking911.com. If you have read this far then please take the time to look at some of my other 9/11 related posts through the tag, or take a look at some of the other stuff on here.
Update 2: There is a response to some of the comments posted below. The post may be found here.