“Truthers,” Truthiness, and Truth
A “Truther” is a member of loosely affiliated organizations and/or individuals who question the accepted account of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Adherents of the movement assert that the explanation of the 9/11 events put forth by government and media contain significant discrepancies and suggest, at the least, a cover-up, and at worst, complicity by insiders. Adherents advocate and discuss different theories about how the attacks happened and call for a new investigation into the attacks. Some of the organizations state that there is evidence that individuals within the United States government may have been either responsible for or knowingly complicit in the September 11 attacks. Motives given include the use of the attacks to initiate the launch of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in creating the opportunities to curtail civil liberties.
Truthiness is an actual word, dating back to the 1800’s, and was defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘characterised by the truth,’ and included the derivation ‘truthy.’ Truthy and truthiness were originally used as straightforward variants of truthful and truthfulness. Unfortunately, in contemporary usage, the word truthiness has morphed into having exactly the opposite meaning, thanks in large part to a satire televised in October 2005 by US comedian Stephen Colbert, who claimed truthiness was “truth” that a person claims to know intuitively “from the gut, not from books.” The American Dialect Society further defined truthiness as the quality of preferring concepts or facts that you wish to be true over concepts or facts that you know to be true. An ironic example of our ever evolving language, more’s the pity.
Truth has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality, or being in accord with the body of real things, real events or actualities.[1] It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal. In a common archaic usage it also meant constancy or sincerity in action or character.[1] The direct opposite of truth is “falsehood“, which can correspondingly take logical, factual or ethical meanings.
******************************************************************************************************************************
Having said all that, I find myself experiencing a crisis of identity: I consider myself to be a firm champion of the TRUTH. Ive promoted it, and practiced it all my life. Imagine my surprise then, when researching this article, to discover that I have also been guilty of ‘truthiness,’ as popularized by Stephen Colbert! In fact, a recent conversation I had with a co-worker haunts me as I write this–I can hear myself saying I had a ‘gut feeling’ about who I consider the real culprits behind 9/11, and the destruction of the Twin Towers. Which brings me to my final admission: I am also a ‘Truther,” which begs the question: are these terms mutually exclusive? Does being a truth-teller and/or a fact-gatherer mean you cant also have (and trust) gut feelings? Does being a “truther” automatically mean you dont deal in facts?
Not as far as Im concerned.
While many ‘truthers’ have been labeled wackos and nut jobs, and perhaps to some extent it is deserved, many of the sites I have been to, and many of the credentials of the persons associated with these sites, or the authors of the articles therein, are sincere, thoughtful, credible and amply supported by documentation–facts, in other words. I debated whether to list facts and give links to these sites, and had even begun to compile the data when I realized that Im not going to change anybody’s mind by doing so. People who are honestly seeking truth will find it on their own. If anyone wants a list of links I consider significant, Im happy to share via the comments feature.
In the end, I think the issue is best summed up by this statement:
There is widespread evidence and documentation that elements of the US government were involved in facilitating the 9/11 attacks. This is not to say that Muslim extremists were not involved or that everything was faked. Many of the claims attributed to the “9/11 truth movement” are speculative, irresponsible, and downright false. This does not change the fact that there is a huge body of legitimate evidence. Whether or not one believes that government complicity is conceivable or possible does not matter until he or she has personally reviewed the evidence. All citizens should be vigilant in independently studying important events or issues such as 9/11, rather than simply accepting the official line from the government and corporate media (or from alternative sources). Deconstructing the official story of 9/11 seems to be a process which is “awakening” people throughout the world. Many are beginning to see the brutal and deceptive nature of the ruling powers and the complete subjugation of the media to corporate interests and official propaganda. In this way, 9/11 is an opportunity of extraordinary magnitude for consciousness building and positive change. (SOURCE)
Its ALL Blarney!! 
Too Cute you have to wear it, trust me it’s better than hearing “you never wore the necklace-pin-hat-scarf I made you!!!” over and over and over…… Just sayin’ 🙂
you mean to say you fall for the guilt routine??? :O
Deb, I think you meant this to go with the Monster in a Box post, right? If I knew how to move it lock stock and barrel, I would 😦
I did, I’ll repost it there and you can delete these here 🙂
To me, the explanation aside from the general story from the media with the most sense is that the attacks were allowed for the purpose of starting the wars/restricting civil liberties as above.
If you still have them, the list of links you mentioned would be great. Because it’s 3 A.M. and brains don’t process things at that point.
Hello Moose, thx for visiting 🙂 If you click on the bold word “source” at the end of the quote I ended with, there is a great site to start with. I’ll send you more via facebook message.