is one I like. There was one online documentary, I forget the name of it, in which the host stated: "I don't think there's much disagreement in the 9/11 research community that one of the strongest arguments that challenges the official story is the issue of 'controlled demolition.'" I remember thinking, 9/11 research community sounds good.

For one thing, the "truther" label opens up invitation for an opposing "side" to blossom and (attempt to) flourish: the "debunkers." And then, onlookers who don't have the time or strength to do the thorough research simply think, "Well, the "truthers" and the "debunkers" each have their strong and weak points, and each side has members who are real passionate that their side is correct, so I'm not sure if I know who to believe. [And then, hopelessly,] We'll probably never know what happened." The onlooker loses any hope and interest over the subject and continues shopping.

But what kind of opposition label can be sprung from "9/11 research community?" It's actually kind of humorous to ponder. "Citizens against 9/11 research"? "the anti-researchers"?

By the way, with regard to the "debunkers," the better label for them would actually be "anti-truthers." They have hijacked the word "debunker." We here are the REAL debunkers, because we were SKEPTICAL of and hence DEBUNKED the official story. People like Pat Curley go after people like Jon Gold with the same venom as they do with Nico Haupt. They are likely being paid to smear 9/11 truth seekers. They are indeed anti-truthers, in the truest sense of the word.

...story, the controlled media also carefully presented to the public an image of the 9/11 truther "nutjob" so as to sabotage the movement from the beginning. Only certain personalities were allowed in front of the camera to represent the movement. Fetzer seems to have been the most prominent. Some of them emphasized the no-Boeing theory at the Pentagon; some talked about the military-industrial complex or the new world order. But all of them had one narrative in common: they all pointed to the US government as the perpetrator of the attacks, and NONE of them ever mentioned Israel or Zionism...

This has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks in my efforts as a "truther." I am immediately lumped in with Fetzer, Avery & Co. It never seems to occur to anyone that I might have ideas of my own, that I may have done my own research. Just a furrowed brow and "why do you think the government did it? Huh?"

I once wrote a letter to the local paper raising a few questions about the maneuver pulled off by "Hani Hanjour" in FL77 at the Pentagon. I also wondered aloud how eight professional pilots were so easily overcome by skinny little Arabs with knives. In response a local military man wrote an outraged letter telling us how disgusted he was that conspiracy theorists blame George W. Bush for the attacks with no evidence. I wanted to write back and point out that I do not believe Bush or the government instigated the attacks, but why bother? It's my voice against O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes. Who's louder?

This technique of infiltrating and defining the opposition is no doubt very old. No doubt it was used against "JFK Truthers" as well in a previous generation. Other societies are more aware of its existence, and know how to contend with it. But as for Gullible America, we're not quite there yet.

has my vote.