San Francisco 9/11 Truth Tea Party Dumps Official Whitewash in the Bay

Extremely silly. Read all three parts of this find series and get back to us.

Counterpunch has put out its special report supposedly debunking the 9-11 conspiracy theorists: http://www.counterpunch.org/ninelevenconsp11252006.html
Since Counterpunch is a well known left progressive website with millions of readers, this gives us a chance to see what passes as legitimate commentary.

It is a package of essays by three authors, all of whom are making ad hominem arguments against "conspiracy theorists", who presumably are draining energy from "legitimate" anti-war activity. Since ad hominem argument is not legitimate debate, I will confine my comments to the one author, Manuel Garcia, Jr., a Lawrence Livermore Lab engineer, who eventually gives supposedly scientific arguments in a three part essay.

After his polemics, in Part 1 he explains how the buildings could collapse in a series of hammering blows as the debris hits each floor, a process known as "pancaking". That this is a merely cognitive dissonant approach is shown by his following section, which says that NIST concluded that the floors had to remain attached to the walls to get the walls to collapse as observed, so the buildings did not "pancake". Thus the argument he presented is irrelevant.

In Part 2, Garcia says that thermite might have been accidentally formed in the crash, a preposterous argument, since the crash could have created neither the fine aluminum powder necessary to make thermite, nor the elemental ingredients of thermite that were found in much larger concentrations in the residues than in the buildings and airplanes. He does agree that if the large amount of thermite residues found by Steven Jones were indeed present that further investigation is mandated, but he does not go further down that road. He suggests that the large amount of molten iron found in the remains may have been caused by underground fires, though no other case of this occurring in a building collapse is known. He also says that molten aluminum was seen pouring out of WTC2, rather than iron, though NIST has not come up with any credible evidence that this is so. If it were true, they would surely be able to simply present pieces of the aluminum that must have frozen when it hit the ground. Garcia gives ignition temperatures for aluminum powder drawn from solid rocket engineering where they are much lower than for thermite, because of the high pressure oxidizing gas found in rocket motors. Altogether this section is fairly incoherent and unscientific.

In Part 3, Garcia presents the theory that WTC7 collapsed because thousands of gallons of fuel oil were pumped from a basement tank, caught fire, and happened to heat critical structural elements such that the building symmetrically collapsed. Since this is an unlikely scenario, detailed diagrams and photos should be presented to support it, though they are not. I happen to know that at the FEMA presentation to the UC-Berkeley Civil Engineering Department five years ago this scenario came up in the Q&A period and was flatly rejected by the presenter, so I would have to have a very detailed explanation for it to be at all credible.

I will interested to follow how the public debate on this obviously vacuous "debunking" goes. I do not expect a lot.

Thanks for the pics - here's some more: http://www.911blogger.com/node/5083

This is fabulous theater and Carol looks like the angel she is in this crowd. One does not have to be any kind of radical to defend the Bill of Rights and conduct a standard legal investigation of a crime against humanity, which the 9/11 Inside Job certainly was, perpetrated by the capitalist class, in particular, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Giuliani, all to maximize the profits of the captialist class by perpetrating war and fascism, the same reason the Nazis perpetrated their Reichstag Fire. By now, 5 years after the 9/11 Inside Job, after all the books, websites and DVDs, there is no excuse for anyone who claims to be for peace and civil liberties to support the government's conspiracy theory unless they are a government agent. We should all note that most of the people who support the government's lie on the 9/11 Inside Job also support the government's lie on who assassinated Pres. Kennedy. Lee Harvey Oswald, a government agent and as he said, a patsy (fall guy), did not kill anyone on November 22, 1963; the whole assassination was also an Inside Job perpetrated by the CIA, involving, Bush, Senior. This promotion of both government lies is true of Cockburn and Chomsky. Chomsky is even worse as he is a strident anti-communist, opposing the Bolshevik Revolution. He also sees nothing wrong with the CIA in relation to the 9/11 Inside Job. There is nothing progressive about either one of them and they should be avoided. As to the 9/11 Inside Job, it is very clear from all the investigations that Cheney was in his White House bunker coordinating the whole show with then mayor Giuliani in his bunker in Building 7, which Giuliani knew to evacaute on time before it was demolished by controlled demolition, as were the Twin Towers, in a few seconds, in their own footprint, in small enough pieces to be carted away immediately thus illegally removing the evidence, which is what happened. The planes had no hijackers; they were on automatic pilot guided by the US Air Force. Building 7 was essentially a military building, housing the war department, the SEC then investigating Enron, and other government offices. The controlled demolition was clearly a military operation, including the use of the military substance, thermate. One of the planes ended at the Cleveland airport and another plane that was apparently a drone was destroyed over Pennsylvania by the US Air Force. An Air Force missile hit the Pentagon on a side that was under construction. All of this air space is of course usually protected by our excellent air defense system. No air defense means that it was an inside job; controlled demolition means that it was an inside job. Any lawyer immediately asks in regard to any crime, who had the motive, means and opportunity? In any case, civil or criminal, any lawyer questions all of the evidence and all statements made by those concerned.

These cold days mandate staying indoors for most of us and if you still do not understand that the crime of 9/11/01 was an inside job, please immediately view the DVD, Loose Change, at http://www.loosechange911.com/
and read the following books:
1. Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert
2. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions & Distortions by David Griffin
3. The New Pearl Harbor by David Griffin
4. Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid
5. The Iron Triangle (on Carlyle Group) by Dan Briody
6. 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions by Rowland Morgan & Ian Henshall
7. Waking Up From Our Nightmare by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman
8. 9/11 Facing Our Fascist State by Don Paul
9. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Tarpley
10. Body of Secrets by James Bamford
11. The War on Truth by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed
12. The Terror Conspiracy by Jim Marrs
13. Towers of Deception by Barrie Zwicker (with DVD enclosed)
14. 9/11 and American Empire edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott
15. Flight 93 Revealed by Rowland Morgan

September 17 2006

Dishonest 'debunking' of 911 conspiracy questioners



I write concerning your article in the Sept 15/06 edition of Counterpunch, 9/11: In Theory and in Fact, In Defense of Conspiracy (original story also copied at the end of this letter)

You have seemed to be a person of some credibility over the years - I first recall noticing your writing following the Yugoslavia bombing, when you were one of the few who dared speak out against those undertaking this attack, and their false justifications for it. You don't seem like an intellectually dishonest person, yet this Counterpunch article very much meets that description, unless you have been seriously misinformed about the whole 911 truth movement (which is not actually a 'conspiracy theory', as no actual theories are put forward by most people, simply some fairly serious questions about how the official conspiracy theory does not make much sense in a lot of places, indeed there are a lot of things that seem like lies, and many others that seem highly implausible at best, with some somewhat more plausible explanations offered in return).

So I wonder if you are not simply somewhat misinformed about the 911 truth seekers and their actual questions, perhaps through an over-reliance on the mainstream media for your information on this topic - your piece certainly reflects a lack of knowledge of many of the things we believe indicate that the official conspiracy theory is highly unlikely. It may well be, of course, you are simply, for whatever reason, joining the 'debunkers' in an effort to silence those who question the official conspiracy theory, in which case the actual things that we believe represent the strongest indications that 911 was indeed an inside job will be of little interest, and you will relegate this email to the wastebacket anytime now. So not knowing where you stand, please forgive the brevity of the following, and the lack of detailed references - I would be happy to provide such if you wished, or you could check out any of the major 911 truth sites for such things, but I do not wish to spend a lot of time on something that may be speaking to ears that have no interest in hearing what I say.

Let me briefly go over the major problems with your piece, as a 'debunking article', and if you are truly interested in getting at the truth of things, you can proceed as you will:

(lesser point, but following the progression of your article - you note in opening that, "..A scientific attitude requires special skepticism in regard to theories one would like, for various personal or ideological reasons, to believe. The wish to pin the supreme crime on the criminal Bush administration is an initial reason to be skeptical.." - this is generally a valid observation - and wouldn't it apply equally to those who are quite anxious to NOT believe 'their government' could ever commit such a crime, and therefore demand somewhat unreasonable standards of proofs of things they disagree with? - but on the other hand, none of the 911 truth seekers, according to anything I have ever read, ever took this approach, at least that I am aware of - that is "AHA! Heinous crime - let's connect it to Bush!!" (you may recall that in Sept/01 Bush was a new, as yet untested, and very much a 'nothing interesting' figure - it was only following 911 that all of the lies etc that have made so many people angry at his presidency began, so your argument here might well be simply tautological, and without substance, really...) Actually, that was the Bushian approach, beginning within hours of the 911 attacks - "AHA! Heinous crime - connect it to al Quaeda - and then, well that worked fine, so how about Saddam? Great - and then - Wait now - Syria! Iran! - and etc) - but the 911 truth people simply followed the evidence of various curious and incriminating things to where they led - it was the Bush government which within hours of that attack declared bin Laden et al guilty, although they say they had no idea it was going to happen; and who refused to initiate any real police-type investigation of this terrible crime, indeed did their best to prevent one for over two years; who actually had the entire site embargoed and prevented any sort of independent crime scene investigation; who had to be involved in any standown of the military that day, etc and etc - there was no stretching of any evidence to implicate the Bush people - everything pointed and points in that direction - it would have been intentionally blind to NOT consider Bush et al, as the real evidence and implications of the events began to be considered through a logical rather than emotional lens...)

But let me look briefly at the problems with your central points:


1. Who gains? You note that both the Bush camp and the al Quaeda seem to have advanced their goals due to this incident, which I think is both simply wrong and a much too simplistic and superficial conclusion. The goal of al Quaeda, insofar as they actually exist, is simply to get westerners, and especially Americans, out of their countries, is it not? Surely you don't subscribe to the Bushian theory that al Quaeda exists for no other purpose than that they 'hate freedom and democracy', and carry out random acts of terrorism because of this? That theory has no legs, as they say in America, for various reasons, and I can't believe, with your historical perspective, you could lend any credence at all to such nonsense. (That is not to say that a terrorist group might not have targetted the WTC in order to give Americans a message that they were very unhappy about the American presence in their countries, and if the Americans did not quit destroying Arabian countries, then they would give the Americans a taste of what it felt like at home - but there was never any indication from anyone that that was the case - and now there is a far greater American presence in their countries than ever, and to say that they are perhaps recruiting a few more people to their cause - well, one can only say there would have been much less destructive (for them) ways of doing that, one has to think). The PNAC people, however, have benefitted greatly, using the attack as an excuse for all out war on the mideast, essentially, where they consolidate both oil supplies and empire (the permanent bases being erected in Iraq indicate they plan to stay). The huge military action (which I suppose you are aware was well along in planning well before 911?) was a vast over-reaction to a criminal act, and in no way justified - a much more logical response would have been some sort of major criminal investigation, etc, but there never was any such investigation, which leads to many other questions itself, as evidence was quickly removed from the crime scene, and everything covered up. But in terms of 'cui bono', look again beyond the 'military' objectives of the attack from either side, or the increased government presence in everyone's lives now - and look at money, where most crime originates. All of the major American military contractors (all very influential in the American government, this is no secret) have reaped hundreds of billions from this, and look to reap hundreds of billions more, as Bush and Cheney et al speak of a 'war that will last generations'. All the spooks, from the NIS to CIA and everyone in between, have increased their power tremendously, which all spooks crave. Did you read about the put options on the airlines? Those options were apparently traced right back to people with CIA connections - but after an initial flurry of interest, the FBI suddenly closed down that line of inquiry completely - go away folks, nothing of interest here! Oh really?!?! - again, the non-investigation of a major crime - it simply stinks of coverup. And the buildings themselves - are you aware that those buildings were facing some major renovation costs to do with replacing asbestos-containing fireproofing - and that the owner of these buildings, which he bought a mere (somewhat coincidentally!) 3 months before this attack, received a huge insurance payout for them? And again there have been reports of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of gold bullion stored in those buildings - I have no idea how credible these reports are, but again, money money money is usually the motive for serious crimes - in the US as much as anywhere else, and it is simply wrong to not look at the money trail of this situation.

- so what we see, Ms Johnstone, is that many very influential people in the American elite-military-industrial complex gained greatly from this attack - and that the various official investigations are simply ignoring these trails is in itself considerably questionable, since, as we all well know, one of the very first things any decent criminal investigation checks out in the case of a serious crime is whether or not anyone gained significantly financially from the commission of that crime. And I would suggest that these various people have profitted immensely more than bin Laden or any 'terrorists' ever have or will. (and note - I am not suggesting bin Laden et al were not part of any potential conspiracy - bin Laden has CIA ties going back 30 years, and there is no good reason to suppose those ties were ever severed - I suggest nothing, other than a full, independent investigation might unearth some very interesting things).


2. Choice of targets - well, I have already mentioned the Silverstein insurance connection as one possible motive for choosing the WTC that any decent investigation would surely have checked out thoroughly (insurance fraud is ALWAYS considered in such things, especially with the amount of money involved here, but seems to have been mysteriously overlooked here, even though all the main signs are there - recent policy, special double indemnity claus for the cause of destruction, buildings facing huge renovation costs if they remain in use... - lots of motive to want all of them destroyed). I think your suggestion that flying a plane into the Statue of Liberty fails for various reasons as well - if we consider the hypothesis that attacking the mideast was a central motive all along (more later, but this invasion was planned long before 911, as you should know), then the relatively minimal and largely symbolic damage caused by destroying the statue of liberty would be very hard to turn into a justification for going to war - as would flying a plane into a football stadium (which I do not think would have resulted in as many deaths - you wouldn't be likely to kill more than a few hundred people this way, it seems to me, but that is not really important). There had to be a huge, emotionally exploitable, destructive event to enable a declaration of war, as they did. Neither the statue nor a couple of football stadiums would have qualified, in my estimation. But to turn your analysis on its head - if the attacks really were orchestrated by bin Laden, and maximal death was the objective - why not fly the planes into one of the nuclear power plants not far upwind from New York in the Hudson Valley - imagine a cloud of chernobyl like radioactivity floating down over NYC!!??


3. W's goat story - I can't pretend to account for the reasons things happened as they did, although you have to wonder at the scenario of Bush 'taking charge' in the midst of a crisis - it seems to me eminently possible that his handlers would be too afraid he would screw up very badly and give something away if placed into a role like this. But the much more important question you seem to be missing is - we KNOW the Secret Service people guard any president like hawks, and many times we have seen and read of their immediate response to any kind of threat, which is to get the pres instantly to a safe and secure place - now, after the second plane hits the WTC, they KNOW the country is under attack with hijacked planes as weapons, but they have no idea how many planes there are, or who or what the targets are - it is simply not believable that this highly trained and protective secret service would leave the president sitting in a classroom reading a book to some schoolkids at this time - a huge dereliction of their duty, and these are not people known for dereliction of duty. Unless, of course, they knew there was no plane targetting the pres at this time.


4. The Arab pilots - are you aware that at least 5 of those named by the FBI as the 'terrorist hijackers' are still alive? This was known not all that long after the attack occurred, but nothing has ever been changed in the official report - the 911 Commission Report itself (which should be placed on the fiction list actually, given the outright lies in it, and the ommissions of important facts that contradict their story) names these same men as responsible. And there are major discrepancies in the passenger lists, and not one of the hijackers has ever been positively identified as being on any of those planes!!!!! - none of them are even on any airport surveillance tapes! I am sure you have flown often, and you know how, even before 911, the flight attendants were very, very careful to have every person identified, and the passenger list checked with the airline staff inside the terminal, before the doors are closed and the plane leaves. It is no wonder these things have never been officially investigated - the official story would face some major problems just trying to prove these hijackers actually existed! As for the twin towers being too difficult for amateur pilots - again, it is not clear where you are getting your information - I don't recall ever reading that 'argument'. The Pentagon, now, is a different story, as evidently whatever flew into the pentagon performed some fairly serious aerial manoevers before impact, which many people have indicated would be a high-difficulty manoever for highly skilled military pilots, and simply impossible for the people identified as hijackers, who (nobody seems to disagree with this) apparently could barely fly Cessnas.


5. Demolition: there are pictures of the the second WTC building to fall, shortly before it fell, with nothing but a quite small amount of black smoke oozing from a couple of the top floors - it simply defies what one knows of the real world (or the readily available picture of other much more serious fires in other high rise buildings which did NOT crumble to the ground in controlled-demo fashion) to then see it crumpling down exactly like a controlled demolition - all of that steel that we know formed the 47 steel columns in the center of that building, just crumpling, at once, boom, like the pictures of controlled demolition we have all seen. Just not believable. Yes 'experts' disagree on this, as they do on many things. Are they part of a plot? Who knows - but we do know that a lot of these people (including those who do not speak out) are dependent on federal grants, and we do know the Bush government are a very vindictive bunch who help those who help them, and destroy those who oppose them, and many may honestly doubt, or simply refuse to consider the idea that their government would be involved in something like this. But beyond that, you ask why the demolition at all? - because, would be my guess, that the bit of destruction involved with simply flying the planes into the towers (without their total destruction) would not have been enough to justify declaring war on half the world. Nor would it have been enough to bail out Silverstein. And I would also suspect that if you had of asked any expert at all, prior to the event, they would have told you that while crashing a jet into a high rise building would cause quite a lot of damage, it would be highly unlikely that a modern steel and concrete high rise skyscraper would be destroyed in this way (the builder is on record as saying that those buildings were designed to withstand multiple impacts of a similar sized aircraft).


6. Absence of jet fighters - your notion that it may have been difficult for the air defence to react in time to prevent the planes being flown into the WTC is plausible, given the overall timeline - but that is not the major evidence concerning the lack of air defence - which is, of course, the plane that was supposedly flown into the Pentagon. This is all a very mysterious thing, obviously, but what is not mysterious is that there is no excuse whatsoever for that plane, whatever type it was, to be flying around American air space, approaching Washington, for over an hour, when the country is KNOWN to be under attack by hijacked planes, with no response whatsoever from the greatest military the world has ever known - and with Andrews Air Force base, whose primary purpose is of course the protection of their capital, a mere 15 miles away. Over an hour after the country is known to be under attack, and no military aircraft over the skies of Washington. This is not just 'foul ups being the rule' - this is simply not plausible. The very first rule when something strange and apparently hostile is happening is ON GUARD!! SCRAMBLE!! - you know that. The story they circulated that all the planes were diverted to Canada or something is simply not believable - the US did not get to be the major military power in the world by promoting incompetents to the highest levels of military command, who would wander around with their heads up their behinds in crucial situations. The story that only 14 military fighter planes were protecting the mighty US of A on that day (or any day) is laughable at best, showing nothing more than contempt for the people they tell it to. The story that they were on duty, but looking only outwards from the shores of the country, is simply a lie. (and the fact that they have various stories which they gave out at various times is a pretty strong indication that they were lying, all by itself). We don't (and may never, given the ongoing coverup) know exactly what happened - but what we do know is that there should have been military jets intercepting whatever that aircraft was (and the Pennsylvania one), and there weren't. SOP were not followed on that day, and that requires a stand down order from someone.


7. The Pentagon - as I said, a very mysterious case altogether, but about the only thing we can be fairly certain of, given the evidence we have, is that no 757 crashed into the Pentagon that day. It's a pretty rare plane crash that leaves no large debris around the accident site - can you actually locate pictures of ANY other major aircraft crashes with so little debris as all four of 911, most especially the Pentagon and Pennsylvania ones, where huge metal aircraft are said to have mostly disentegrated, and yet left a full component of passenger DNA to identify all the passengers? Highly unusual, to say the very least. But the truly damning thing about the Pentagon is that it is known there were several operating video cameras covering the place of the crash (the garage station across the road from the crash site, a nearby hotel, the freeway nearby, the pentagon cameras, at least), whatever it was - and all of the tapes from these cameras were siezed within minutes of the crash by FBI agents (rather odd, when you think of it, even that they would know for certain just where to go for such tapes!) - and not a single picture, let alone video, has been released showing anything clearly recognizalbe of the impact (the tape released a few months ago shows nothing, you have to admit!). And the only plausible explanation for this is that none of these tapes confirm the official conspiracy theory, but actually show a cruise missile or some other thing hitting the building.

I won't bother with the anthrax stuff, that seems all irrelevant to me, distraction or something, but not involved with the actual events of the day of 911.

Ms Johnstone, if you honestly think even briefly about what I have written, then you will have to acknowledge that the only reason you actually found the 911 truth movement questions (nobody in the truth movement is proposing any 'theory' I say again - we are simply asking questions about a lot of things that just do not add up) to be unconvincing is that you have done what most 'debunkers' have done - cherry picked a few of the lesser points that are raised as part of the whole package, added a couple of your own straw men, shot down the whole thing, and said 'There is nothing to the conspiracy theory at all!' - a very, very dishonest approach, as I said at the beginning, and quite unsuitable for one such as yourself, in my opinion.

Well, I'll leave it there - I've spent most of a Sunday afternoon doing this when I might have been doing other things, but it seemed important to me - your response or lack thereof will be sufficient indication of how honest you actually are about all of this.

(I don't actually consider myself a 'conspiracy theorist', I consider myself a conspiracy questioner - I just cannot believe the conspiracy story of the US government concerning what happened on that day, for the reasons briefly outlined above, but with a lot of other information that relates to this but I have not taken the time to go into here - the more one reads of this, really, the less believable the official story becomes...)

There's only one important question concerning the attacks, did the US gov't allow/participate in 9/11?

The answer to that query would explain the illegal wire-taps, suspension of habeas corpus, banning of books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and multiple wars based on lies.

How can the gov't be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?

In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov't to the same standard as it holds us to?

Final link (before Google Books bends to pressure and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

first of all, nice action. anything that brings attention to the truth is great.

secondly, it is axiomatic that people reveal themselves when the shit hits the fan. thus corn, cockburn, goodman, et al have revealed themselves for what they truly are - shills for the elite. when goodman finally allowed the discussion onto her show, she simply brought on the disinformation kooks from 'loose change' - word to the wise - if they talk about 'energy beams' or UFOs being responsible for 9/11 they are shills. If they use the scientific method, they are most likely not.

third - one nitpick - while this was a great action, was it really necessary for you all to dress up like genocidal murderers ("patriots")? the real boston tea party was simply a bunch of people who wanted to enslave africans and eliminate native americans (while the biritish wanted to slow westward expansion and end slavery...). Patriotism in general is for scum - lowlife scum at that. I realize that you want to reach out and win the hearts and minds of american scumbags, but do you really have to dress up like murderers to do it?

Why is no one questioning Infoshop.org's function as another gatekeeper of truth?
They in fact take it a step further. They actually write articles not so much "debunking", but INSULTING the 9/11 truth movement, in much the same way as Bill O'Reilly has. Yet Infoshop gets away with this with impunity.

infoshop = chuck munson. he claims it is a collective, but time and again it has been shown that his word is the sole authority for the site.

chuck munson is also a gatekeeper. the mere mention of anything else but the official 9/11 lie is completely censored from the infoshop forums, blogs, and site.

as i said before, when the shit hits the fan, people reveal themselves for what they truly are.

on the morning of september 11th, 2001 the planes hit the towers and the pentagon. since you are en educated, smart person, you already knew that

- the US govt lies
- the US govt lies to start wars
- the US govt lied about the USS Maine to start the spanish american war
- the US govt lied about the gulf of tonkin to expand the vietnam war
- the US govt purposefully lured the japanese to attack pearl harbor (conclusively proven by the mccolumm memo)
- the US govt had previously planned acts of terror against its own citizens (operation northwoods)

...but on that morning you felt the govt wasnt lying, and that 19 evil arabs (some of whom the BBC says are still alive) did the deed. despite everything you knew.

and that makes alexander cockburn, amy goodman, david corn, and - yes, chuck munson - racists - plain and simple.

You just polluted the bay. Nice job!. Did you think about the dyes and the like you just put into the water. What about the trees you wasted to make that box!!!!!

There's no reason to believe some guy wearing a hood over his head ("just me") attacking someone with Alexander Cockburn's record of fighting oppression. Go back to your FBI masters and try harder next time.

it is said that einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

it is now known that every major war-causing event in US history over the last 100+ years has been fraudulent.

so, when another major war-causing event happened on the morning of 9/11/2001 what exactly was in your head - how did you react?

did you (irrationally) believe what the govt and the media told you - even though you knew that they are paid liars?

or did you (quite a bit more rationally) suspect that there was fraud afoot - based on the fact that every other similar event was also fraudulent....?

the perpetrators of the event counted on people's racism. so much so that within hours of the event, the faces of 19 evil brown men were paraded in front of you and the story was swallowed en masse. even though the BBC says that some of those men are ALIVE.

when you KNOW one thing and BELIEVE another, there is a reason for it. i submit that feelings of racism and nationalism are so deeply embedded in people like corn, cockburn, goodman, and munson that they cannot escape them - their behaviour - more than anything else - tells the story.

How does choosing to diverge from the 911 skeptic's movement equal racism?

i think 'dissent' is a poor choice of word, however i will attempt to address your question.

the reason that those who promulgate the official fantasy regarding 9/11 are most likely exhibiting racist behaviour is simple - the official fantasy is inherently racist in that it relies on one's racism in order to be believed.

it was no different in the 1890s when the US relied on people's xenophobia to sell them the idea that the uss maine had been sunk by the spanish. we now know that that wasn't true.

and it was no different in the 1940s when the 'treacherous' japanese executed a 'sneak attack' on pearl harbor - which was actually conconted in washington d.c. and which we now know because of the mccollum memo - conclusively.

we could go on with example after example. and i don't have to tell you any of this - and more importantly i would not need to tell an alexandar cockburn this - or a goodman or a corn or a munson.

my goodness - especailly the anarchist! it is the very nature of states to terrorize their own citizens. it is their very nature to deceive in order to make war - which is the very health of the state. this was made clear in rome when certain senators would send out their thugs at night and run on law&order by day.

so we have these people and we know full well what they know.

and then the planes hit.

and then the govt and the media trot out the same old racist, xenophoic routine - within hours we have their brown-faced pictures on every tv - thanks, we now know, to a 'rosetta stone' suitcase left behind which just happens to finger all 19...meanwhile the BBC reports that several of the pictured men are actually alive. they don't retract the story - they don't correct the story.

what am i making an issue of is - WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN YOU SAW THE PICTURES?

a) Hmmm. The government and the media lie a lot. The Government has lied to start and escalate wars before. I wonder if they are lying.

or

b) Wow. Looks like a bunch of Arabs just hijacked some planes and flew them into the pentagon and the world trade center, just like the government and the media is telling me. Arabs do that kinda stuff, you know.

Racism is deep... a very deep-seated fear and hatred that manifests itself when the situation presents itself - just like it did on 9-11.

a cockburn, a goodman, a corn might think that they give voice to the opressed, but when the shit hits the fan they went into circle-the-wagons mode. on infoshop - munson's site - discussion of anything besides the official fantasy is strictly forbidden - any post diverging from the state version of events is immmediately removed! don't believe me? go to the infoshop.org forums and post something about how you think 9-11 was an inside job - no matter how innocuous, it wil be removed.

it seems that the people who can see through the 9-11 deception are not attached to the left-right spectrum - as a poster above mentions - and the same goes for advocates of the official fantasy. chuck munson will respond in a matter very similiar to bill oreilly when presented to doses of 9-11 truth. goodman even goes so far as to give airtime to 9-11 disinformation ("loose change") - FIVE YEARS after the event- virtually on par with the mainstream media.

i suggest that that these people are either paid (less likely, except for perhaps goodman) or just plain racist. they are willing to put their fingers in their ears or -worse- cover your mouth.

let the gatekeepers be exposed for what they are. when the planes hit and you saw the 19 evil arabs - what were YOU thinking?

People who don't agree with the left are labeled racist, nazi, facist..... by the left. It has become the lib who cried racist.

i gave a rather detailed explanation of why i feel the gatekeepers of the left and "post-left" (lol) might indeed be exhibiting racist behaviour when they deny (and not only deny, but actively censor) 9-11 truth.

just calling someone a 'liberal' isnt an argument, bob. whatever a liberal is (in europe, it means what we call libertarians - hyper capitalsists, over here it seems to mean people who want to take away guns and let gay people marry - or something) ... i'm not one. similiarly, the charge of 'racist' shouldnt be made without basis - i've laid out the basis of my argument, would you (or anyone else) care to actually argue the case, or would you prefer to just call people names?

So what do you say Bob.... ??? I'm a local activist and I really am interested in your Point of View, please engage.

- the US govt lies
- the US govt lies to start wars

So, if the govt lied, why didn't they say Iraqis hijacked the planes? Why the whole Bin Laden/Al Queda /Saudi stuff? They woulda killed two birds with one stone, then

JUST OPEN YOUR EYE'S AND LOOK AT THE NORTHWOODS DOCUMENT!

just wondering - here is a response.

first of all, i have to say, i do not know who was behind the attacks of 9/11. i simply know that the official fantasy could not possible be true - given the facts, reason, and logic.

what we are left with is what is "most likely" to be true.

why pin the blame on bush's old pal and investment partner osama bin laden (formerly known as "tim osman" when he was being given personal tours of US military bases)? why pin the blame on "al-qaeda' (literally "the base" but colloquially "the toilet")?

and the answer should be obvious. from the 70s to the 90s the USA spent between 6 ond 20 BILLION dollars promoting islamic fundamentalism. the USA created the network of islamic groups that were used as resistance in afghanistan as well as in kosovo, croatia, and elsewhere.

in other - more plain - words, "al-qaeda" (aka "the toilet") was (and is?) a US asset.

what better enemy to have than one you created yourself? and this is not without precedent. it has been revealed that in the 1950s when guatemala was going through a civil war which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people - mostly peasants - the US - while appearing to supoprt the right wing government exclusively, was actually funding the rebel opposition - but only when it seemed that they were on the verge of defeat.

so, it has been established that US planners have no problem making up plans to terrorize its own citizenry (operation northwoods), and it has been established the US warmakers have no problem funding the opposition if it suits their needs.

al qaeda is also convenient as a 'mad dog' enemy - as in "those fuckers are crazy! they are overrunning this and overrunning that! they wanna use a dirty bomb on us!" etc etc. while it's true that saddam hussein was also a CIA asset (going back to at least 1959), he was not seen as someone who was bombing embassies in africa or US ships in arab harbors (uss cole).

furthermore, a world already dubious of US lies with regards to afghanistan and "al qaeda" (who the fuck names their "terror" group "the toilet" for fuck's sake?) would have been absolutely incredulous of an iraqi attack on the USA.

you see, it would require enourmous amounts of racism to believe that iraq (or iran or noth korea for that matter) would attack the USA or use WMD against the USA, as the results would be obvious. only a racist would believe that evil brown people would strike out in anger - knowing full well that it would be mean complete death and misery for themselves and their country.

i can only speculate as to other reasons. for example, the taliban in afghanistan (another US creation, btw) had put a near end to opium poppy production. now that the US occupies afghanistan, opium/heroin supplies coming from afghanistan are at an all time high - with the results to be seen at SF General hospital.

just whom do you think profits the most from the global heroin trade? afghan farmers? lol the history of US intelligence and heroin is long, well documented, and mainstream.

as you read all of this, keep in mind that the neocons/PNAC/zionist crowd STILL wants to USA to outright attack iran. when you hear that iran has attacked the USA in a most nonsensical way, please try to keep in mind what i have just said.

you are being lied to. and the people that are lying to you are relying on your feelings of nationalism, racism, and xenophobia.

Hello True,

If you look at the left, there is very little debate. It is typically name calling. I am not saying that the right is always innocent, but we see more of it on the left. If I engage someone here, I am called a racist, nazi, facists..... It has gotten to the point where these terms have lost their punch. The left needs to use facts in an engagement rather than swears and name calling.

Even listening to talk radio, which is typically conservative, someone with a disagreeing opinion is more likely than not to call the host names. I have even listened to AirAmerica and all I here is complaining and name calling.

With another example, look at immigration. My wife is an immigrant who came here legally. She and I oppose letting illegals stay in this country. We have a lot of legal immigrant friends, but if we express our ideas here, we are termed racists. It has gotten to the point where we are racists for wanting the laws of the U.S. enforced, when the laws are not racist.

the term "racist" is obviously a charged one. and, true, it is often abused.

however, racism exists. it is a real thing that goes hand in hand with its cousins - xenophobia, nationalism, and jingoism. these are real forces, real memes, that have real affects on people's lives. are we to stop examining these issues simply because some people (jesse jackson comes to mind) abuse them so badly?

when i look at the writings/musings of people like cockburn, corn, goodman, and munson on the subject of 9-11, i see irrationality from otherwise rational opiners (or semi-rational at least lol).

in invoking racism/nationalism/xenophobia i am making a hypothesis meant the explain a possible reason why these people are behaving in a manner that i see as irrational - disregarding precedent, ignoring facts, invoking ad hominem, censoring honest debate - or even worse - promoting disinformation.

i can only imagine the following possible reasons for such behaviour:
-paid/agent status
-duress
-racism/nationalism/xenophobia (call it latent, repressed or whatever you like...)

further, i submit that each and every person needs to check themselves - when the planes hit and you saw the 19 photos what did you think? did you remember that they lie to you? did you remember vietnam with lie after lie - they even secretly bombed a country (cambodia). did you remember how they lied about babies grabbed and tossed out of kuwaiti incubators?

or did you just accept what they said because you couldn't believe it happened on "our" soil. did you blame arabs because they showed you pictures of arab men - even though you knew THEY LIE. did you even doubt it for a moment?

racism is real. xenophobia is real.nationalism is real. it's in the right, it's in the left, and i submit, i hypothesize, that it is in anyone who does not at the very least doubt the official fantasy regarding 9/11.

(P.S. to Bob - how can you believe in laws when your constitution is meaningless to your president, your congress, and your supreme court?)

I just read a comment on here that really nails it on what US Politics is doing in the World. History doesn't lie, the proof of what the CIA and Military up thru the President's Office and CONGRESS too for that matter ARE DOING is neatly laid out in this earlier post here. I remember right after 9/11 being myself caught up in the "Patriotic" response of "Yeah, let's go get them!"
THEN I started reading articels connecting the dots on the FBI/military war machine efforts to ensure 9/11 happened and I WOKE UP. THEN I saw video footage of the Twin Towers each collapsing and SAW the numerous explosions blowing away the supports so the building could collapse.
THEN I saw video footage of the WTC Bldg 7 collapsing later that day, imploding and all 47 stories collapsing at free fall speed!!! That only happens when every suport beam on every floor is blown with carefully placed explosives. THIS WAS DONE TO ALL 3 WTC BLDGS THAT FELL ON 9/11. WTC Bldg 7 is a block away from the Twin Towers and was not much damaged at all before it collapsed. Do your research, buildings NEVER collapse like this UNLESS carefully loaded with charges to BLOW every support in unison to allow a complete collapse.

Wake up my Fellow Americans and March on Washington in unprecedented numbers to DEMAND a House Cleaning of unprecedented proportions. I don't believe anything less than Million Member marches on Washington will start to bring about the House Cleaning our Government needs.

Here's a possible way to help make that happen: 5 to 10 people that know each other well pool resources to send ONE of them to Washington to be in the HUGE March On Washington. Out of 100 Million adults it would take only 1 in 100 to be sent to Washington to MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

Recall how effective Martin Luther King Jr's large marches were. Multiply that several times over with the well informed and eloquent leaders we could push to the fore to demand our government listen and comply FAST to root out the traitors and dismantle the War Machinery that keeps pulling this crap on us and the World.

Anybody out there want to Second this Motion? Anyone know of any single group that IS ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING EFFECTIVE ABOUT THIS NOW? Anyone know of anything OTHER than OVERWHELMING Numbers of people camping out at our Nations Capitol that WILL get the ACTION we need? BUSINESS AS USUAL JUST WON'T GET IT.

Best, Tom

With regard to racism, it has always existed to some extent. You always want your team to win. Remember the boys versus the girls. The problem is when it is taken seriously. And I agree that Jessie and company do nothing but make white guys question black doctors.

With regard to the towers, I have heard the arguments and, as an engineer, I don't believe them. I doubt that an bomb could have survived the impact of the 767s. In addition, if the bombs were planted, how did they know exactly where the planes were going to hit. I didn't see several explosions. I saw a rush of air that may have appeared as an explosion. The last tower burned and gave way.

What constitutional rights have this president, congress, and sc ignored? I've heard that line, but I can't think of any.

Conspiracy theorists who assume the US government (or even a smaller group in it) is the only group capable of carrying out things like 9/11 seems to me a bit racist.

Beurocracies frequently act in a more stupid fashion than individuals and it is a bit dellusional to see the US government as monoloitic, omincient or even capable of keeping a major secret.

The problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories in general is that they set out relatively easy to disprove facts and then teh scientists (or magazines like Popular Science) that debunk the theories are seen as part of the conspiracy.

I personally believe pretty much the entire Popular Science debunking but that doesnt mean I believe the "official" version since there really isnt much of an official version.
Di Bin Laden plan the attacks? Did he just finance them and not know much about the details? How many of those on the planes knew it was a suicide mission? Why is finding Bin Laden no lonegr a major priority for most in the US public or government given the "official" story.

Asking these questions is a far cry from theories that the WTC towers couldnt have collapsed due to the fires (some structural engineers may say that but the vast majority dont so Id side with the simpler explanation that the majority of them are not part of some conspiracy). It is also a far cry from assuming that no plane hit the pentagon, the inflight calls were fake etc....

I think its possible to be sceptical and come question what happened on that day but it is made hard to do so by most of the 9/11 Truth movement that likes to highlight kooks and attacks those who disagree as part of the conspiracy. Just because one doctor may not believ HIV causes AIDS doesnt mean thats true. Just because one physicist doesnt think the towers fell due to a fire doesnt mean thats true either.

bob, you ignored virtually everything i said. i ask you as i have asked everyone else - when the planes hit and they showed you those 19 brown faces - did you simply believe them or did you question them - based on the FACTS that they have lied to us time and time again - specifically about these kinds of events.

i really dont know what you mean about 'the boys vs. the girls' or wanting "your team to win."

the very reason to be interested in politics and world events is because i want EVERYONE to win, in a world of ubiquitous peace and prosperity. if you preer instead a world where you win and others lose (aka the status quo) then i refer again to nationalism and its cousins, racism, xenophobia, and jingoism.

do you REALLY want your well being to depend on the rape and murder of iraqi children?

you ask:"What constitutional rights have this president, congress, and sc ignored? I've heard that line, but I can't think of any."

i'm sorry, but that statement shows amazing ignorance. besides the basics (the president cant spy on US citizens without a warrant - but this one did, the president cant hold someone without charge - but this one did)- there is a big huge stinking violation of the constitution going on - and - guess what - in the end it means you (yes, you bob, are wa war criminal.

Article VI of your constitution says clearly that if your president signs a treaty and your senate ratifies it, then it becomes the law of the land - law that is HIGHER than the constitution itself. don't believe me? look it up for yourself.

now, whether you or anyone else wishes to acknowledge it, the US is a signatory to a treaty which says it will not aggressively attack another nation unless the UN security council says it is ok. again, don't believe me? look it up for yourself.

and what does the law say about countries which violate these condiditons? it says that it is incumbent on the citizens of that country to stop their nation from going to war. oh and this is the most important part:

OBEDIENCE TO LOCAL LAW CANNOT BE OFFERED AS AN EXCUSE FOR NOT FULFILLING YOUR LEGAL DUTIES TO STOP THE WAR.

According to your own constitution, bob, the president, the congress, every single member of the US military (except for watada and a handful of others), and YOU are guilty of violating the law.

I realize that all of that might seem a little heady for you, so I can break it down to you even easier. Forget war crimes - lets focus on being purely selfish. Last year you lived in a nation which had habeas corpus - enshrined in the constitution. This year you live in a nation without habeas corpus.

That means the president can declare you an enemy and lock you up and deny you contact with anyone - including a lawyer. You might find that aceptable today, but will you find it acceptable when Hillary is president?

dear "just what i think" - your response is pretty typical, so allow me to respond point by point:

you say: "Conspiracy theorists who assume the US government (or even a smaller group in it) is the only group capable of carrying out things like 9/11 seems to me a bit racist. "

i said quite clearly that that I DO NOT KNOW who was behind the attacks. i said simply that the official fantasy is so unlikely as to be termed impossible.

furthermore, the FACTUAL HISTORY points to deception as the most likely explanation of events. again, if something keeps happening over and over again and you are expecting different results - well, that is a common definition of insanity (courtesy of einstein).

you said: "Beurocracies frequently act in a more stupid fashion than individuals and it is a bit dellusional to see the US government as monoloitic, omincient or even capable of keeping a major secret. "

no where have i suggested that the US govt is "monolithic [or] omincient[sic]" - these are simply words you put into the mouths of people you disagree with.

regarding your thoughts about "conspiracy theories in general" -- are you aware that the FBI does not consider osama bin laden to be a suspect in the 9/11 attacks? don't believe me? look it up yourself. or bvetter yet, call the FBI and ask them for yourself.

let's keep in mind that YOU believe in a "conspiracy theory" - it simply a theory that has been told to you by the liars on television - the same ones who lied to you about the gulf of tonkin or about kuwaitis babies being thrown out of incubators.

then you make the mistake of attacking those who wish to explore a more plausible explanation of reality. how did the towers fall? a very interesting question, but i think the following questions ar ethe most telling ones:

- why did the USAF stand down on 9/11? they scrambled jets to go after a pro golfer in a lost plane just months before, but on 9/11 SOP was not followed - why? and why hasn't anyone been held accountable for the greatest failure in USAF history?

- why does the BBC say that several of the "hijackers" are alive? if the hijackers did the deeds they should be dead - how come the BBC has never corrected or retracted their statement?

- how can we be expected to believe the 'magic passport' and 'rosetta stone' stories from the press, when we know that they have lied to us extensively in the past. how does a terrorist's passport escape the flames and land - only to be found within the hour. sorry, but you are a totla sucker if you buy this - FROM KNOWN LIARS.

you have difficulty separating information from disinformation. someone talking about UFOs and energy beams is clearly not the same as someone talking about the standdown or the passport.

there's much more to say obviously, but i got 2 minutes left on this cafe internet hookup :)

- why did the USAF stand down on 9/11? they scrambled jets to go after a pro golfer in a lost plane just months before, but on 9/11 SOP was not followed - why? and why hasn't anyone been held accountable for the greatest failure in USAF history?

"why does the BBC say that several of the "hijackers" are alive? if the hijackers did the deeds they should be dead - how come the BBC has never corrected or retracted their statement?"

They didnt. You can call the BBC and ask them. There was some initial confusions and there probably still is as to the exact identfity of some of the individuals but I dout you can find a single BBC reporter who believes that there is an ongoing coverup of who hijacked the planes (even among those reporters who believe there was a coverup of potential warnings and how the US dealt with the hijackings)


"- how can we be expected to believe the 'magic passport' and 'rosetta stone' stories from the press, when we know that they have lied to us extensively in the past. how does a terrorist's passport escape the flames and land - only to be found within the hour. sorry, but you are a totla sucker if you buy this - FROM KNOWN LIARS."

The "press" usually lies by omission or by context but with the internet a worldwide press conspiracy (including all leftwing newspapers all around the world) seems a bit reidiculous.

"you have difficulty separating information from disinformation. someone talking about UFOs and energy beams is clearly not the same as someone talking about the standdown or the passport."

But thats the problem with the 9/11 truith movement. A few real concerns are thrown out along with a lot of things that are obviously untrue and when anyone questions the really crazy things thrown out they are accused of attacking a staw man. Just because the towers did fall because of a fire, a plane did hit the Pentagon and those on the plane were pretty much who the official story says they were doesnt mean that there hasnt been a coverup of warnings, the inpet response of the FAA, and attempts to link the hijackers to people who had nothing to do with them.

Getting back to some of the racism things:
When people assumed Oklahoma city was carried out by Middle Easterners ("because only they woudl do something like that"), that was racism.
When peopel assumed after 9/11 before facts came in that the hijackers were from the Middle East that also contained some racism.
But the fact is that to believe that only white American men are smart enough to carry out a conspiracy and those attacked by the US are unwilling or incapabale of fighting back is also racist.

"by the US are unwilling or incapabale of fighting back is also racist."


Ok I agreed most of what you said until I read that. What exactly do you mean "they" who are "fighting back"? Please explain.

The US does nasty things all over the world and many people actually do fight back. In the 1980s the FSLN fought back against US backed terrorists and in El Salvador the FMLN fought a guerilla war against a repressive government. In Iraq and Afghanistan right now many of those fightings US occupation are doing so because they are feed up with the actions of the US.

Right after 9/11 occured assuming it was "Middle Eastern terrorists" before the facts came in was racist, but assuming it must have been rich white men (because nobody else would have been able to pull it off) would have been equally racist. You can spin the facts now in a lot of directions but I was mainly pointing out that assuming all of those fighting the US with arms are just agent provocateurs is a bit racist since it assumes some mental superiority by those in the US government over those oppressed by it.

I guess at another level assuming that only the US would do it because it was such a bad thing has a tinge of racism in it, in the sense that someone like Rousseau was a racist (viewing foreign cultures as somehow more in touch with nature and all evil comming from Western civlization can setup justifications for neocon or old colonial ideas of helping innocent savages) The US causes a lot of the problems in the world but reductionist thinking that singles out the US as special can start as being seen as third world solidarity but usually morphs (as the ideology spreads more than in individuals) into justifications for war (because it assumes the problem is one of getting rid of an evil ruler and then maybe a Nader or a Dean will use US power for good) The whole NeoCon ideology around Iraq was in a way similar to this way of thinking (they assumed the US was fundamentally good and Saddam evil and getting rid of him would suddenly result in everyone loving the US).

In terms of charges of racism, why was the "9/11 Truth Tea Party" as shown in the pictures all white? I guess part of that may be that celebrating colonial days (when slavery existed) wouldnt be as appealing to others but it does seem to go beyond that when you look at who is actively involved in the movement. It is true that 9/11 conspiracies are much more common in other countries than here but those conspiracies are different than what one hears from the 9/11 truth movement that seems to like American flags and talk of patriotism in a way that often reminds me a bit too much of the US far right.

Assuming it was "Middle Eastern Terrorist" could hardly be considered racist because this particular group of "Middle Eastern terrorist" had already committed a string of attacks starting in the early 1990s. Also the 9/11 attack was consistent with Al Qaeda's policy of total war against US interests, i.e. civilian and military.

I am wondering how you can claim that they were "fighting back"? You do realize Al Qaeda essentially struck first, and that the US only responding once with military force after the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Up until 2001, from the Kobar Towers to the Cole bombing, the only side that was making a concerted effort to fight was Al Qaeda. Quite matter of factly, Al Qaeda believed and boasted that the US response to 9/11 would be limited to just another Cruise missile strike as before.

The trash we dumped into the Bay- the 9/11 report was not intended to harm the ecosystem. There was a fishing line attached to it and we intended to fish it out after the action- but the line broke, however it did get tossed by wind and waves to the shore where we fished it out. We recycled the covers- and had them at the impeach Beach event last Saturday. Here's a page with the fished out covers- drying on the grass- http://tian.greens.org/SanFrancisco/Dec06/TeaParty/index.html