Globe and Mail "reviews" Towers of Deception

Martin Levin, writing in the Books section of the Globe and Mail yesterday (page D13), trashes Towers of Deception and says some of the "more important" books on 9/11 will be "reviewed at length" in coming weeks.

Levin misrepresents Zwicker's argument, claiming, for example, that Zwicker says Noam Chomsky "is part of the plot," without explaining what he means by that. Levin writes:

"Now I have little trouble believing it possible that plutocrats of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis of ego are orchestrating things for their own benefit and that of their Fortune 500 cronies. Or that the war in Iraq is based on an unsavoury stew of misconceptions, stupidity, wishful thinking and deceit. But what I do have difficulty believing is that the 'perpetrators' are intelligent enough and, I suppose, quite evil enough, not only to concoct such a grand strategy, but to carry it off so deviously that only Zwicker and his allies can discern its true nature. I have just as hard a time believing that this sometimes entertainingly obsessive screed has proved anything at all."

"Only Zwicker and his allies"? You mean the 100 million Americans, 20 million Canadians, and countless millions of foreigners who believe the US government did it?

More than that, his whole argument about how "intelligent" and "evil" the conspirators would have to be makes no sense. He seems to be saying it's more probable that 19 men with boxcutters outwitted the most sophisticated military in history than that a multi-trillion dollar military-intelligence complex with a pliant media could orchestrate and coverup the attacks.

Instead, Levin recommends the comic book version of the 9/11 Report.


According to Alex Jones,

According to Alex Jones, Chomsky IS part of the plot. He's a "shill for the NWO". I tried to warn people about this. Progressives regard this (rather obnoxious and mean-spirited, not to mention baseless) theory as just as ludicrous as truthers find the official story -- and rightly so. It's one thing to say that Chomsky is being a punk-assed bitch for not speaking out on 911, it's another to say he's a part of the "illuminati". This kind of garbage will turn progressives off faster than no-plane theories.

I'm sure Zwicker did not in fact say this is in his book (I havent' read it yet), but we gotta stop throwing around this "psy-op agent" stuff. IT IS NOT PRODUCTIVE IN THE SLIGHTEST.

New Flash video by Dandy

New Flash video by Dandy Warhols on "Anti-Americanism", featuring Chomsky

Chomsky is just in over his head

Chomsky built his career as a progressive critic and activist by rightly constructing an alternative worldview to that of the mainstream media. He has his own prejudices and biases like everyone else. Intellectually, Chomsky's brilliance lies more in the realm of assiduous research and citation--his mind is very much like a computer in this way, but also in the sense he he lacks imagination. People who lack imagination find it difficult to break down the mental constructs they build because imagination is (to use a hackneyed phrase) akin to thinking outside the box of your built-up world view. Chomsky is so wedded to his particular vision of the world that he is incapable of opening his mind to the possibility that while formidable, his model is not perfect--he depends too much on "trusted sources" of information (like most academics) and because of that training is loath to admit any facts into his model for which he cannot find sources he trusts. I spoke with him in person for a few minutes after running into him while doing truth work in Cambridge. Asked about building 7, he pleaded ignorance and claimed that it would take him "2 years of studying civil [sic] engineering to understand why it collapsed." And that to him would be a waste of time given the urgency of countering the Bush agenda. Of course he can't see that the Bush agenda rests precariously on the structure of building 7, or else he would realize that maybe those two years of study would be well spent. His lack of imagination in this regard and unwillingness to have to revise his decades-old world view is what keeps him from speaking out and/or forming an opinion on 9/11. I don't think he knowingly shills for the perps as Alex Jones might argue. If anything he's just not up to the challenge that 9/11 presents--again, because he is skeptical and cynical but not nearly enough to take in this crowd for just how vicious they truly are. It's a new world, Professor Chomsky.

"Come mothers and fathers (and Chomskys) all over the land, and don't criticize what you can't understand. Your sons and your daughters are beyond your comman, your old road is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand. For the times, they're a changin'"

P.S. Bob Dylan and Noam Chomsky are kindred spirits in a sense and suffer similar cognitive difficulties with the new era of dissent and resistance, but we owe them both a great deal for their past work, and shouldn't throw out the babies with the bathwater of their latter-day failings.


"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

Water Too Deep For World-View Held By Chomsky.

I think that was well said, RT

Yes, well said. The

Yes, well said.

The proliferation of accusations in 9/11 truth -- shill, disinfo agent, whatever -- probably does little to identify such personalities, and does much more to shroud the movement in unproductive paranoia. Or, such constant name-calling gives outsiders the impression we are all paranoid.

When Levin says Chomsky is "part of the plot," he intends the commment to suggest that Zwicker's sense of conspiracy knows no bounds. It's a cheap shot.

Free From The Quartering Of Soldiers (buy your own damn gun)

Get this... the time and need for paid and active "agents" has passed. Simple buttons are all that need to be pushed for free willing supporters and know-nothings to run laterals all day long to paralyze and dissolve truth from the inside.

Franticly swinging the Flag Of Truth and claiming to be the only non-shill? Give me a break, Class "9/11" 101, is "How to wave a False Flag".

Take a deep breath, decide if you want to live or die.

9/11 was a crime.

The government charged with protecting from such, or finding the perps... doesn't seem genuinely interested in either.

The people earning the most money for promising to prevent another.... same people who promised and got paid to prevent it the first time.

The solutions offered to prevent it, are the vary same things that cause it.

Criminals roam free, as confused people will buy snake oil from charlatans who promise them they will die unless the charlatan gets to live under the bed.

At some point, we're most likely going to see that long forgotten "quartering of soldiers" business laughed at as well.

"Come-on, you've got to let us post a Freedom Hero in your living-room, otherwise we can't protect you. Here's the bill for arranging this, oh ya, you gotta provide him/her with three hots and a cot, too.

What's that? "Going broke", you say?

You don't want to get stabbed in the neck, do you?

You're not going to deny that you want our Security do you?

You're not going to question these measures, are you? That's what the tarraists what you to do.

Questioning the government is only done by America-haters, and tarraist alike. You're not one of Them are you?"

This is down right sick.

Wake the fuck up, people.

Wake the fuck up. Fully, already.


"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Zwicker doesnt exactly call

Zwicker doesnt exactly call him an agent per se, but what he does say about him is just as damaging. and dead on.

Instead, Levin recommends the comic book version of the 9/11 Rep

There's just so far that even moderately intelligent poeople can be spoken down to. I think this Levin has crossed that line. He may think he's very convincing whereas he is in fact very condescending. "You can't figure it out, and neither can Barrie Zwicker--read the nice comic book that the government made for you, peasant, and shut up already."

Let them eat cake and read comic books.

Oh dear, learn history or repeat it...


"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

I just submitted this letter to Martin Leven


I cannot see your review of "Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11", as anything other than a biased hitpiece of the book and really the entire 9/11 Truth Movement. I say this because you openly ridicule Zwicker's book without good reason. The only defense you offer is the intelligence and evil of the "Bush-Cheney-Rumseld Axis of Ego" as being insufficient to carry out the deed.

Without at least acknowledging Zwicker's arguments and rebutting them logically, I have a remarkably easy decision in not taking your review of "Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11" seriously whatsoever.

Made me feel better at least :)


Poor "review" by Globe and Mail

This so-called "review" by Martin Levin is actually somewhere between a passing mention and a real review. It is disappointingly short and intellectually empty. In the eight sentences he devotes to the book, Levin does two things of note.

First he takes a cheap shot mischaracterizing Zwicker's position on Chomsky as being that Chomsky is "part of the plot". Actually Zwicker presents a range of possibilities, including that Chomsky and others on the left may not wish to endanger their funding from large foundations--hardly the same as saying they are part of a plot.

Second, Levin (like Chomsky and Barsamian) refuses to discuss any of the mountain of evidence, saying only that it would be impossible for the government to pull off the 9/11 attacks without more people discerning it than "Zwicker and his allies". He declines to mention that according to a recent national Scripps-Howard poll, 36% of Americans suspect government either planned or intentionally allowed the attacks to occur.

The good news is that the reviewer has come up with nothing of substance in the book to critique. He resorts to mischaracterization and denial. That's a very weak position once people look at the evidence. Our work continues. Thank you for your contribution Barrie. I highly recommend the book.


all you nee dto do is watch levins "documentary"

his documentary called "the protocols of zion"

basically sums up where the guy stands, according to him the only people questioning 9/11 are a bunch of jew hating bigots, who make up stories like odigo warning it's users.

well then, according to mr. levin haaretz must be a bunch of jew hating bigots

go watch his documentary, before you start defending a useful idiot in the least and a psy-op (yes I'm throwing this word in cause I've seen his documentary) in the worst.

No one here is "defending"

No one here is "defending" Levin.

bad choice of word