Pecosin Rat's blog
A letter to the editor in Scientific American (April 2015) questioned Michael Shermer's derogatory use of the term "conspiracy theory" with regards to people questioning the official story of 9/11. It pointed out that there are at least two 9/11 conspiracy theories and Dr. Shermer espouses one of them. In the Letters section of the magazine Shermer has the last word, saying in effect that he has debunked the other conspiracy theory. Below is a response I sent to the editors(email@example.com) when I was auto-Logged out after submitting a comment to the Letters section.
A letter to the editor by RL McGee on the search for 9/11 truth was published today (Wed, Sept 3rd) in the Daily Reflector in Greenville, NC, today. The letter and any online comments can be read at http://www.reflector.com/opinion/letters/letter-seek-truth-911-attacks-2639965
Wonderful video. It doesn't quite come out and say the things about 9/11 that need to be said, but it comes close. Further, Ron Paul has a very large following and from this video I can see why.
A lawsuit has been filed against the leaders of the Bush administration that seems to be getting some actual traction in the courts. The Bush crowd are being defended by the Justice Department. A website called QuietMike.org is following it. The video below gives a good quick summary of the legal arguments being made. The most interesting argument is about judicial estoppel which prevents a government from making the directly opposite claim in court of previous claims in court. In this case the US government previously claim that high office didn't protect officeholders from being charged for crimes against humanity (war of aggression and torture) in the famous Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II. For that reason, the Bush Administration leaders can't use their high office as protection against the very crimes the Nazis were prosecuted for.
The online article at the website can be found at:
The article linked below is from Washington's Blog. It answers two important questions. The first is, "How can it be that American media hasn't said something about the obvious problems with 9/11?" And the second, "Why does NSA need to sweep up the records of millions of people?" Knowing something about how Hoover built influence in Washington, I suspected his model was being used at NSA. However, just like 9/11, I didn't want to believe it. This, unfortunately, makes it easier...
The attack on 9/11 was a horrific act, but it is the story—the words, if you will—that surround the act that have given it meaning. The meaning conveyed by "You are either with us, or against us." or "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." are perhaps some of the more blatant examples of how the events of 9/11 have been framed to be the foundation of the Great Fear society. But, more insidious, is the use of the phrase "conspiracy theorist" to defend the official view from critics. The frequency and effectiveness of its use in this way has been so powerful that it is now part of the lexicon used to discredit anyone with a contrarian view of the world.
The efforts of the 9/11 truth community to get the attention of "official" media are having the desired effect. I know this because recently our local paper, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, published a series of letters to the editor (with associated comments in their on-line forums) that gave real voice to the questions frequently raised here.
They have published letters to the editor about 9/11 issues a time or two before, but this time they published a series of three related letters over the course of about a week where—in my opinion—the arguments for questioning 9/11 spoke much louder than the opposing view. This kind of quiet attention from a local editorial staff seems to clearly signal an awakening to the core 9/11 questions, particularly since the last word went to a fellow questioner of the official story of 9/11. Further, the on-line comments were overwhelmingly from people who were largely well informed about the holes in the government's theories of what happened on that day.
Following are links to the article that started the exchange and to the letters that followed:
April 2nd - Original Editorial that inspired 9/11 letter
April 5th – First Letter-to-the-Editor Raising What-Happened-on-9/11 as a Issue
April 8th - Letter Defending 9/11 Commission Report
April 14th – Letter Critiquing Defense of 9/11 Commission Findings
To read the on-line comments follow the link at the bottom of each web page.
The years of efforts by the activists who write and/or are reported on here are bringing the question of what really happened on 9/11 to the public's attention. Thank you! It's working. Keep it up!
The new website, BillMoyers.com, appears to very carefully censor 9/11 comments posted to the site. The following comment was posted to the site almost 4 days ago and has yet to appear. The comment was received by the site because, just after posting it the message, "Comment will be posted after review.[sic]" appeared in the comments section. There has been one 9/11 comment posted to the site with essentially the same message, but with less technical detail than the comment shown here.
A wonderful article...as far as it goes. In the Moyer's video interview of Mr. Lofgren about this article, Bill made certain to state that the ideas expressed here are not about conspiracy theories. It appears that while Mike has awakened slowly to the existence of the Deep State, he has yet to acknowledge that there are actors in that ideological group that can and will do anything to sustain its power. Witness the threat to the deep state organization that the ending of the cold war represented. Suddenly, there was no one to be the "Great Satan" to justify deep state control. As if by magic, an event came along and reversed the deep state's loss of power, 9/11 recreated a Great Fear Society. Lofgren cannot avoid obliquely acknowledging here the dramatic change of the deep state's grasp of power after 9/11.
Campaigning for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 by writing personal letters/emails to people of influence, such as columnists and commentators has not received much comment in this space or others. However, it may offer a real—even if quiet to the point of invisibility—strategy for changing public opinion.
Columnists in particular, on both the left and the right, often write columns about the issue-of-the-moment. In recent months that would include the use of drones, invasive spying by the NSA, and whistle blowing. No matter what the political persuasion of the writer, nearly all journalists/columnists will write from an assumption that the events of 9/11 offer some justification for actions that, before 9/11, we would have judged to be illegal or—in the case of whistle blowing—a citizen's appropriate constitutional duty (regardless of legal prohibitions to the contrary).
Writing comments on Web pages is certainly one form of expressing a concern about weak assumptions adopted by writers and public speakers. However, an email or letter allows a great deal more freedom of expression because it is—unlike online comments—only intended for the writer's eyes. The obvious weakness of this personalized approach directly to columnists is that it can be a lot of effort for a target of one. However, that is also its greatest strength, since the email writer can bring in details that are personal to the columnist/journalist/public speaker that might not have been appropriate when writing for a larger audience (like column comment readers, for example).
Bill Moyers made a speech to the History Makers organization a while back. In it he made use of the "conspiracy theorists" term as a pejorative to describe people still seeking the truth about 9/11. Following are excerpts from a letter written to him about his speech. (The physical facts that make the official conspiracy theory impossible have been deleted as unnecessary for this audience.)
The January edition of Scientific American magazine includes a new column by Michael Shermer. In it he gives his theory on how conspiracy theorists delude themselves and how to effectively respond to them. It makes for interesting reading. The comments are also fun.
"Experts Speak Out" will air three times this week in Greenville, NC, on the public cable channel, channel 23. Show times are 11 pm tonight (Mon., Jan 7th, 2013), 9 pm Thursday (Jan.,10th), and 2 am Friday (Jan., 11th). It is only available to cable subscribers (Suddenlink Cable) and probably only subscribers in Pitt County (Greenville is county seat).
The news accounts for this fire do not indicate whether this is a steel superstructure or not. However, I'm guessing from its height and from the fact that it's still standing that it has a steel framework.
Truthout.org posted an article yesterday (Sat., 29Sept12) describing the success of Colorado Public TV 12's airing of the "Experts Speak Out" documentary. The article also made the headlines on the Buzzflash.com website (a subsidiary of Truthout). Here is a link to the article: http://truth-out.org/news/item/11851-colorado-pbs-runs-9-11-film-sponsored-by-9-11-families-experts-reject-official-story-... . The writer points out that supporters of the film are asking public TV viewers everywhere to ask their local PBS station to air the documentary.
Wikipedia has a relatively new feature. Since July of last year it allows readers to rate pages. The rating feature is found at the bottom of each page. Ratings reports like the one below apparently don't reflect every rating of a page since this feature was turned on. I haven't been able to find a description of exactly how the ratings are accumulated, but when pages change (are edited) I believe the ratings start over again. Following is a snapshot of the page ratings for Wikipedia's page describing the September 11 attacks. The page is little more than a thoroughly detailed and totally documented rehash of the reports from NIST and the 9/11 Commission. It's interesting to observe that 1182 people rated the page's completeness (on average) a 1 on the 1 to 5 scale (with 1 being least and 5 being greatest).
Scientific American magazine, through columnists like Michael Shermer, has supported the notion that the World Trade Center was destroyed by fire, just like the government said it was. However, a recent article in the magazine, "Castles in the Air" (September, 2011), discusses the building boom in high-rise steel superstructure buildings and does point out how ironic it is that these buildings continue to be built.
A letter to the editor about the article was published in the January 2012 edition from Luke Bisby, a Senior Research Fellow in Structures and Fire at the University of Edinburgh (see the link below). His letter comes to the conclusion that architects and engineers need to face the reality of what a fire can do to a high-rise building. Neither the letter writer, nor the editorial staff of Scientific American bothered to note that over 1,600 architects and engineers have faced the notion that fire destroyed all three buildings at the World Trade Center and rejected it.