Perry Logan pokes holes in the "Truther" Conspiracy Frame

I dimly remember Perry Logan from back in the DZ 911blogger days.  He was quirky and snarky, but never had the trademark condescension indulged in by the owners of SLC.   He was at one time a regular at JREF 911 conspiracy subforum and had the distinction of being(to my mind) mysteriously banned.  Especially considering his behavior in debunking never included working with frauds harassing  family  members or spreading obvious lies invented by Holocaust deniers, something SLC has done wittingly or not.  

Another one of Logan's charms was he was a self identified lefty.  Personally I always suspected that's what got him banned from a place that was a haven for Right Libertarians.  But I really don't know what happened, and Logan himself seems to harbor no ill will against the JREF forum as an institution since he was promoting it well into 2010.   I wish he'd stayed more involved because he was a voice of level headed reason in a crowd of "debunkers" trying to pass of invective as well reasoned talking points.   It takes a certain maturity to realize the short term satisfaction of lobbing pot shots doesn't win hearts and minds.

At OpEd news Logan makes excellent points in some comments on why the "truther" conspiracy is a flawed narrative:

Comment1:

 Problems with the Truther "official story":

1) If 9/11 had been an inside job, they would have pinned it on Saddam Hussein, not bin Laden. We know that Bush-Cheney used 9/11 to get us into Iraq. But if they, or elements within the Administration, had planned the operation, they would have framed Saddam. We would have invaded Iraq in a heartbeat--with no embarrassing stuff about WMDs.
2) If 9/11 had been an inside job, Bush and Cheney wouldn't have been so discombobulated after the planes hit. Bush went into brainlock, and Cheney was in an absolute panic. This doesn't fit with any 9/11 scenario.
3) If 9/11 had been an inside job, there would have been more bogus domestic terror attacks after 9/11. I say this because this is exactly what most 9/11 Truthers repeatedly predicted after 9/11, though they don't talk about it much now. Radio host Alex Jones (a fellow Austinite) has been wrongly predicting more domestic terror attacks ever since 9/11. That's nine straight years of wrong predictions! The Truthers' predictions were wrong because their theory is wrong.
4) If 9/11 were an inside job, they wouldn't have shut down Wall Street. Most Truthers say that international bankers were behind 9/11. But 9/11 shut down Wall Street. International bankers would never fund a project that shut down Wall Street! They would have told the planners to find another target.
5) If 9/11 had been an inside job, the Truthers could agree on the basic elements of the story. If you study the Truther phenomenon, you will soon discover that virtually every Truther has a different version of what went on on 9/11. If there were really "tons of evidence," as Truthers are wont to say, the Truthers could agree on at least a few elements of the story. (Example: 9/11 Truthers do not even agree that 9/11 was an inside job. There is a theory known as LIHOP--let it happen on purpose--which does not posit that 9/11 was an inside job.)

Submitted on Monday, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:29:46 AM

I'm not 100% sold on #5.  Many credible communities disagree on minor or even major points, though over times this usually fades as more information is known.   But #s 1 through 4 are golden. 

#1:  Why waste time in Afghanistan if they could have pinned it on Saddam in the first place?  Aspects of this have been pointed out by others, specifically the bait and switch in "Truth" propaganda between the Afghan war and the Iraq war.  

 #2: One could make an argument that Bush and Cheney were really, really good actors, but if it had been an "Inside Job", the best way to capitalize on the situation and sell themselves would be to TAKE CHARGE.  Though obviously rehearsed, this would have solidified their political grip, even impressed the Democrats. 

#3: Point three speaks directly to the Alex Jones/LaRouche/Tarpley habit of predicting WORLD WAR "X" ANY DAY NOW.  Oops, nevermind.    It's a tactic not uncommon in extreme religious organizations to radicalize and brainwash followers.  It works rather less well on a decentralized Internet platform, which didn't stop them from trying.  Logan's point about them not talking about it so much is spot on.  Droves of leftists and antiwar people have abandoned the "truth" movement as a sham and in no small part of the failed augers like Alex Jones.  This if nothing else proves the so called leaders were just making it up as they went along.

#4:  THIS.  So this.  If the Bankers are behind it and it involves money, no way would they agree to LOSE money.

Mr. Logan has other good points, flaws in logic that do more to get someone to question the conspiracy confidence game than any mockery at SLC ever did:

 

Planning a hoax: Truthers love to find apparent absurdiites, contradictions, and absurdities in the "official story" of 9/11. But these anomalies do not suggest a conspiracy. Quite the contrary.
If you're planning a hoax, you want your cover story to be as believable as possible. If people see through your story, you're screwed and the whole operation is a failure.
This applies to the behavior of the Secret Service. If 9/11 had been an inside job, the smart thing to do would be to whisk the President away in the prescribed manner.
Another example is the fall of WTC7. It fell hours after the planes hit, and in a way that looking like CD to uninformed people (actually, it did not fall in the manner of controlled demolition, but never mind). No one planning the operation would do this. They would destroy Building 7 right along with the other ones, so as not to arouse suspicions.
When you get too many anomalies, it does not add up to a conspiracy. Just the opposite. The conspirators would not concoct a crazy cover story for such a big job.

Submitted on Sunday, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:38:24 AM

These are worth repeating:

"Truthers love to find apparent absurdiites, contradictions, and absurdities in the "official story" of 9/11. But these anomalies do not suggest a conspiracy. Quite the contrary.
If you're planning a hoax, you want your cover story to be as believable as possible."

" When you get too many anomalies, it does not add up to a conspiracy. Just the opposite. The conspirators would not concoct a crazy cover story for such a big job."

Logan has punctured the bubble in which the conspiracy scam operates.  While irregularities in evidence certainly should be examined and explained, they do not automatically equal deception.  And if they do, they will be discovered by credible researchers with a solid track record, not web-warriors who have watched one too many Alex Jones reruns.

I HEART Perry Logan.  ;)