Earlier this month, Salon rightfully took on the disgraceful community of Sandy Hook truthers. Evidently, though, not all conspiracy theories are created equal. This morning, writer Greg Olear posted a piece at Salon asking us to “give truthers a chance”:

Clicking the above link now will only be an exercise in futility. Someone at Salon eventually realized that the threshold for crazy had been crossed — quite a feat for Salon — and took down the post.

Salon redirect error

Bummer, man!


Fortunately, the internets are forever. The Weeklings, a site where Olear posts, still has the piece:

The money paragraph:

What concerns me about the repudiation of the [Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists] is that the 9/11 Truthers are being tarred with the same “crackpot” brush. Yes, many of the September Eleventh conspiracy theories are implausible, and too often veer, as conspiracy theories unfortunately tend to do, toward the anti-Semitic. But unlike with Sandy Hook, 9/11 conspiracy theories flow from a scientific fact: whatever the 9/11 Commission Report might claim, fire generated by burning jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel. As with JFK’s “Magic Bullet,” the official version asks us to pretend that the laws of physics do not exist. This opens the door for alternative versions, however ridiculous, that must at least be considered—even if, as was probably the case in the aftermath of the JFK assassination, the cover-up was well-intended, and not the case of an evil shadow government doing evil shadow-government things.

So many alternative versions of history to consider, so little time. What else could we be missing? Twitterers are always happy to help out the media when they can, and they’re pitching ideas for future Salon exposés:

We can’t wait to read all about it!

  • Kevin Krom

    I knew I should have bought Salon back in the day when I could have gotten it for the coins found in my sofa. How on earth has such an irrelevant entity remained afloat this long?

    • Bob

      With help from Fox and others omitting so many facts and truth. See these scum morph right before your eyes to demonize us too!!! Just cos they make one comment, don’t jump! See juvenile GB megalomaniac trying to omit/deny/lie about Sandy Hook for$$ and run by the CIA….

      • nickshaw

        So, I take it you’re a trufer?
        It was the CIA, Fox was in on it and fire don’t melt steel.
        They need a much bigger Ripley’s museum.
        To house all of you.

      • Kevin Krom

        Thanks to the complete and utter lack of any coherent thought expressed above, I am now dumber for having read it. Much like I would feel if I ever read anything from Salon…

    • nickshaw

      Obviously, with Bob’s and a considerable number of others, patronage, Kev.

  • Bob

    Well, let’s see if Miscelle M censors my two other posts…or even this one…

  • Stone Bryson

    I know I may get attacked for this (which is bummer, because I generally agree with most of the folks here, most of the time), but when did it become ‘crazy’ to ask questions when something doesn’t make sense to you. I’m not talking about the Alex Jones’ of the world, and certainly not speaking of Sandy Hook, but generally speaking. If an official story does not seem to fit together, if the narrative being sold seems wrong on multiple levels, why does a person who simply asks challenging questions get ridiculed?

    Is it because government has never lied to us, that they have never ever in the history of the Republic done anything shady ever? Yeah, I don’t buy that, either. So again I ask… why?

    • Googie Bergdorff

      What was the challenging question here? Just a moron women’s Studies major who doesn’t grasp the most basic aspects of metallurgy.

      • Stone Bryson

        I said, “generally speaking” meaning not specific to this article. Believe me, I am no fan of Salon…

    • USKensington

      It’s not crazy to ask questions when something doesn’t make sense to you. What’s crazy is refusing to see the sense when it’s right in front of you in order to keep asking the questions.

      • Stone Bryson

        While ‘sense’ in such matters could be considered a relative word, on the point you made here I agree 100%. Thanks so much…

    • Guest

      Question was asked and answered a long, long time ago.

      • Stone Bryson

        “Generally speaking,” Still, a fascinating reply. Thanks for the feedback.

        • Guest

          I have no issue with questions being asked. When I first heard the 911 truth stuff I found it wonky on the surface, but stopped to listen to what they had to say. I’ll listen before I call them crazy. As an engineer I was able to basically go down their whole list and cross everything off as wrong without a second thought… and I’m not even a structural engineer. All of their questions can be answered in very basic engineering classes.

        • Guest

          As a side note though, I’ve never heard the truther’s respond to some rather simple questions posed to them. They say the planes couldn’t have brought down the towers, ok, well then what did? Controlled dets are a huge undertaking. For buildings much, much smaller than the WTC it takes weeks to setup. And it’s a very invasive operation, drills, jackhammers, saws. Lots of manhours. So, please explain to me how they managed to do this in one of the most heavily trafficked buildings in the world? They had what like 150,000 people in and out of those two towers on a daily basis. Even in the dead of night thousands were still there. Nobody noticed hundreds of men drilling into concrete pileons setting up charges and running det cord?


          There is nothing plausible about any of it.

    • Kimmy84

      There is nothing wrong with asking questions. But when you receive an answer that 99.99% of scientists in that field agree with, and you choose to ignore it, you then leave yourself open to ridicule.

      • Stone Bryson

        I would argue the 99.99% number, but for the record let’s say you are correct. Does that mean that anyone who disagrees with the 99.99% of scientists who swear climate change is caused by humans deserve ridicule? I don’t think so, personally, but perhaps you do.

        As a matter of fact, ‘climate change’ may be the biggest conspiracy theory on the planet… if one believes such things. Right?

        Again, not a 9/11 truther myself. Just curious about the mentality of ridicule…

        • TexSizzle

          The percentage of scientists who swear climate change is caused by humans is well below 99.99% you claim; in fact, many had to sue the anthropomorphic climate-change (ACC) true believers to keep them from falsely claiming that the suers were also true believers in the religion (not science) of ACC. Maybe you aren’t a 9/11 truther, but you appear to be an ACC truther.

    • http://www.facebook.com/scott.ryan.3154 Scott Ryan

      In order to pursue this “line of questioning” you must believe that;
      a. The “official story” – terrorists hijack a plane and hit TWC and the Pentagon is not true.
      b. The “government” did it.
      c. Hundreds of your fellow countrymen were “in on it” and murdered thousands of your fellow countrymen
      d. …and NONE of them ever spilled the beans
      You must realize that going there marks you as clinically insane.

      • Stone Bryson

        No, this does not apply to me, because – for the record – I am not a 9/11 truther. I just find it intriguing how the members of Twitchy (and many other supposedly ‘alternative media” sites) scoff at nearly ANY conspiracy theory that crosses their paths, even when clear evidence is right in front of their faces. Your specificity here is very helpful, however – thanks so very much.

        • Elilla Shadowheart

          The problem with your line of reasoning is there is no reason to it. And the reason why people scoff at at conspiracy theories is simple. Conspiracies are difficult to prove outside of solid evidence, and when there is no actual evidence then there is no truth. Except what a person “believes” to be true. And that isn’t a conspiracy, that’s conjecture.

    • AdoEdem

      “All the pieces not fitting together” is less evidence of a conspiracy and more of government simply being incompetent, per Occam’s razor (Among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected) and Hanlon’s razor (Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity)

      As for fire being able to melt steel (which was fairly common knowledge even among illiterate peasants circa 1650) here’s a helpful site to understand how that all works: http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

  • diskinetic

    Opening the “Scientific consensus” window lets in a few wackos, so allow me to offer as an amendment that those 99.9 percent (and probably higher) of scientists can support the consensus on a bench test, unlike with climate change.

  • GTFOBigGovt

    #salonpitches The [Nazi Weapons Act of 1938] law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general.

    Oh wait. They actually printed that.

  • red robin

    There can be NO GUN CONTROL, because it will be directed at
    the Military who are being attacked in the United States. The Military Families
    are being thrown out of their houses and the Transnational International
    Foreign Gangs are being brought in to replace them. This is done under the
    local Cities and Counties with Los Angeles, CA being the protocol. The SHOCK
    AND AWE that was created on those poor little children is a Travesty of
    Justice. There needs to be an investigation of how the SHOCK AND AWE was set up
    to get the immediate Gun Control Laws that must have been already planned. This
    is what Adolf Hitler did — the Blitzcreig (sp) like the USA “SHOCK AND
    AWE” to disarm the Americans. This is un-constitutional and the Executive
    Branch can only operate under the United States Constitution, as the Oath of
    Office was only taken under the United States Constitution. Otherwise it is an
    attempt to Over-throw the Constitutional Government, which is High Treason and
    Congress shall bring the charges. It is grounds for Impeachment and