<< PREVIOUS Critique NEXT >>

Equating Critique With 'Infighting'

  • Critique of work purporting to be '9/11 truth' is typically unwelcome.
  • Some stigmatize all critique by framing critique as "infighting".
  • Science, evidence, rational discourse are irrelevant.

Jim Fetzer's conference in Madison in August of 2007, "The Science and Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not" included Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Dave Von Kleist, Barbara Honegger, and others, and featured conclusively debunked theories, such as hologram planes and Tower-vaporizing space beam weapons.

The demonizing of critique and conflating it with infighting is exemplified in a description of the conference on MUJCA.com:

Many participants lamented the phenomenon of "internet lynch mobs" comprised of angry emailers and bloggers demanding that this or that researcher be banished for heresy. Often these internet lynch mobs are made up of people who have not carefully studied the research issues that they so confidently pronounce on. Barrett urged those who find controversial research issues a distraction from 9/11 activism to either study those issues with an open mind, or ignore them and focus on activism. The worst thing to do is waste time and energy on fruitless infighting.
[emphasis added]
http://www. mujca.com/madisonconference.htm

Junk science is framed as "controversial".

page 10 Copyright 2006-2007 911research.wtc7.net