Truthers get a bad rap. But there’s a ray of hope…

As 9/11 approaches, I thought maybe it should be time to seek truth from the Urban Dictionary:

Truther
Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11. Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself.
BYU professor Steven Jones is perhaps the most famous truther.

A “truther” is somebody that confuses nutters, rightwingers, republicans, Hannity, Beck, O’Rielly FOX News pundits etc., by telling them the truth. Such is their nature when telling them the truth and rebutting their lies.
President Bush had a blank confused look on his face when a truther told him there were no WMD’s in Iraq.

One who tells the truth and does not lie.

Now, implicit in that last one is the root definition of the word TRUTH… which is part of our namesake here at Hammer of Truth. But since the tragic day on 9/11, the terms truth and truther have gotten a bad rap thanks to the general whitewash of those events of September 11th — and the continuous spittle of lies from government at every turn. Maybe it’s time we give the people who have the temerity to ask “what really happened?” …a fucking break. This concerted effort by the government since 9/11 has been to factionalize and divide people, to atomize their existence into one of complacency and acquiescence. I say fuck that. I know when to stand up for what’s actually an act of RESTORING HONOR which anyone with a soul should do: Seek out the truth, and DO NOT LIE.

I say the hell with division, we’re all Truthers here in the liberty movement.

14 Comments
  1. I agree.

    Too many people are uncomfortable with the questions being asked because they are afraid of the answers.

    To me, a truther is someone who is not satisfied with the official explanation and wants the truth, not necessarily someone wedded to a particular alternative theory (inside job, Israeli operation, or what have you).

  2. I know it rubs a lot of folk here the wrong way, but I’m gonna go ahead and take the government’s side here. It seems manifestly obvious to me that the “government story” IS the truth. Any other explanation withers quickly in the light of scrutiny.

      1. I don’t think Stuart is being ironic.

        A lot of libertarians still have that same view. However, there are way too many things in the official account that just don’t add up.

        Loose Change: Final Cut goes over some of the main ones.

        1. I’m just saying “government story” and “truth” don’t belong in the same sentence. Everyone should at least be able to agree on that.

        2. This isn’t irony. I’m not a “Truther” and have never been. And Loose Change is full of holes.

          Also, not everything ever said or done by a government is automatically wrong or bad. A government once said that all men were created equal, after all. There’s no reason that something being the “government story” automatically makes it wrong by default.

  3. There is empirical evidence that it was a demolition therefore implicating the U.S government

    As for the hundreds of witness statements who heard bombs going off, I think the demolition murderers made a tiny miscalculation because a building so huge had never been demolished before, and this gave enough time for people to escape the ground floor and tell the media outside that they saw and heard explosives around the Ground Floor.

  4. Or, because a building that large had never collapsed before, it collapsed in a way that sounded like bombs.

    I really need to get my buddy Dan on here. He’s awesome at debunking this stuff.

    1. I’ll sic Andy on him if he can get over the 2006 burn. Funny, he’s pissed about that and he didn’t chip in. I did, and I’m not.

%d bloggers like this: