Why can't we stop using cunty terms like no-planer, and truther? That's another good question, but today let's focus on why the "mainstream" of the 9/11 truth movement so vehemently resists any open discussion of the possibility that the images we were spoonfed from the military industrial media complex that day could have been digitally manipulated.
I follow the rule that one shouldn't speak with absolute certainty unless one is absolutely certain. So I'll say what I'm certain of. I'm certain that much of the evidence presented by these mysterious "no-planers" is very compelling indeed. I'm equally certain of how repellent I find the instinctively closed-minded response of most of the 9/11 truth "establishment" regarding this issue.
I sometimes need to pause and remind myself of how truly inappropriate and unwelcome our "conspiracy theorist" title is. I was simply pursuing reliable information and genuine knowledge, and Conspiracy Theorist is the condescending title I ended up with. (Apparently, the irony is completely lost on these twits, that if there were no conspiracy theorists, no crimes would ever be solved, since the entire essence of law enforcement consists of theorizing about how, when, where, and why a suspect conspired to commit a crime.) It's precisely this kind of narrow-minded labeling, and dismissal that helped turn me off to the mainstream media, and attract me to the truth movement to begin with. And it dismays me to see people within the movement act like kool aid drinkers themselves by declaring certain things taboo. Our time here is too short to worry about taboos. That's what a Gibroney would do.