Village Voice article on Protest

Sarah Ferguson of the Village Voice NYC wrote this about our protests at Ground Zero:

Conspiracy Types Lecture Regular Folks at Ground Zero

There was a conversation about this story in the blog section below the article. I'm posting comments from that other board under Fair Use provisions of copyright law. There are many posts. I just excerpted mine, and hers with them to give context. Perhaps others should go there, read the article and add their own comments?

"Sarah Ferguson is a psuedo-journalist. Not only does she get Alex Jones completely wrong - (yea right, he's from the LEFT!?), she's completely biased and combines some verisimilitude with total bullshit to mislead the public. She also believes the NIST report adheres to the basic physical laws of science and hasn't herself bothered to check out anything beyond official sources, or to think for herself. She may be a good writer, but she doesn't write non-fiction. She writes fiction in the guise of non-fiction and most likely doesn't even realize it.

Why does Sarah Ferguson believe the official story without investigating it? How could it be a insult to the Dead and to the Mourners to try to bring the true perpetrators to justice and to inform the public of the hoax? Why does she parrot the government and mainstream Media talking points and lies? Why is fake journalism being promoted by the Village Voice - a supposedly "alternative" news source?

Many people who lost loved ones *know* the official story is a lie. (As would anyone who bothers to look and think beyond official sources.) Many mourners and those who lost loved ones were among the people Sarah Fergueson portrays as "[disrespectful] kooks."

Very few people there took exception to the presence of the questioners. I imagine they saw our respectful presense to be in the tradition of American independent political thought and tolerated our dissent. The reason she called our signs "brazen" could only be because she didn't and doesn't understand from where the genuine shamelessness of the situation comes.

We were allowed there. We did not disrupt. We were integrated into the activities of the day. Sarah Ferguson's reportage shows a mean-spiritedness characterized by a closed mind."

She said, replying to much criticism, beside mine:

"I agree I should not have cast Alex Jones as the Rush Limbaugh of the conspiracy "left". On closer inspection, he appears more of a nativist libertarian given his open support for the Minutemen. As for crackpot, yes, that's a strong word, but to say that 9-11 was ordered by Queen Beatrix and the Bilderberg group is pretty crazy. Anyone who believes the world is controlled by a tiny elite needs to travel more. I agree there are many unanswered questions about the causes and events of 9-11. But reading through what evidence there is, I remain profoundly unconvinced that that WTC towers were blown up. It is far scarier to acknowledge that there is an violent extremist Islamist movement that U.S. policies in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere helped foster, which we don't control, and which is fundamentally opposed to both Western secularism and US policies abroad. Indeed, al Qaeda's critique of globalism is in some ways very similar to the one espoused by Alex Jones. As for the size of the rally, it was very hard to gauge with all the other people there to visit ground zero. I originally eyeballed it at around 400 given there were people on both sides of the street. Another journalist said 300 so I settled for "more than 300." It certainly wasn't 1000, as some activists there were claiming. As for the guy with the neon sign, I thought he was opposed to the US war in Iraq, which puts him there as an antiwar protester, regardless of his position on Afghanistan, which I didn't hear, but which nevertheless many in the antiwar movement, to various degrees, share.

Posted by Sarah Ferguson"

She wrote:

"You know, looking back at what I actually wrote, I wasn't so wrong when I called Alex Jones the "conspiracy left's version of Rush Limbaugh." Paleoconservatives may claim him as their own, but there sure were lots of lefty folks cheering him on outside ground zero in NYC on 9-11. In fact, left-oriented "9-11 truth" activists seem to embrace him as much as the rightwing ones do--no doubt because he's good at broadcasting their theories.

The story I wrote was not intended as any blow-by-blow analysis of the many outstanding questions that surround 9-11. I was down there to report what I saw at ground zero on Monday, and I did, including grimacing police. I interviewed Jones on the street not to sandbag him, but with an open mind, to see what he had to say.

Obviously if you read what I wrote, I don't simply accept what the government or the 9-11 Commission says about 9-11. My point in the story was to say there's been such an abuse of truth by the Bush administration, the American public doesn't know what to believe. I referred to the numerous omissions of the 9-11 Commission report, as well as the manipulation and mistruths that Bush used to take us to war in Iraq. There are indeed many outstanding questions about NORAD's response on 9-11, why warnings of the attacks were ignored, why Bin Laden has not been caught. There is also a long history of official conniving to protect US oil interests abroad.

But I think people who obsess about the buildings being blown up are leading people down the wrong rabbit hole. I also agree with Alex Cockburn that those who believe Bush and Cheney masterminded the attacks woefully ignore the incompetence of this administration (and previous ones) --as well the bumbled response of Rudy Giuliani for citing the city's Emergency Command Center at WTC 7 in the first place and leaving the FDNY with inoperable Motorola radios, which Wayne Barrett's and Dan Collins' new book exposes."

My comment:

"I agree with the poster above who says the Leftist knee-jerk reaction to the 9/11 Truth movement is really harming all of us.

If I don't misrepresent S. Ferguson's point of view, she implied 9/11 Truth proponants do not accept what is "far scarier to acknowledge that there is an violent extremist Islamist movement that U.S. policies in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere helped foster, which we don't control, and which is fundamentally opposed to both Western secularism and US policies abroad." Her "idea" on that is just wrong.

Does anyone really believe the people in the 9/11 movement think they have more "control" over their own government, than they would have over some reputed scattered "terrorists?"


By that, Ferguson implies people still believe in elections, even after the last two were stolen. Even Greg Palast, who thinks 9/11 Truth is nuts and many other researchers, know the last two elections were stolen. That's hardly cynical anymore.

Does anyone really feel it is "scarier" to have terrorists hanging and hiding around, than to feel one's own government, which is supposed to protect, defend and represent us, is a bunch of foul sick traitors? Who are capable of anything?

(In comparison, the betrayals of a pedophile priest, who at least allows his victims to live, look insignificant.)

In fact, many people refuse to look at the evidence for 9/11 skepticism simply because they couldn't bear to face its conclusion. I have met many such people.

Where is this, "It's so much more comforting to think the government did it" coming from? Stenographing recycled talking points?

The 9/11 Truth position gives much less peace of mind, than does that of the status quo, because of the enormous power of the USA State and the subsequent to 9/11 stripping away of Civil Rights under the cover of law and "protecting us from terror." The State is against us and the State has much more power than some rag-tag terrorists.

The reality is that the horror of 9/11 Truth is what keeps people believing the government's lies..(In an abridged "hang-out" form, or otherwise.)

It's not fear which causes our recognition, but emotional courage.

S. Ferguson also said:

"Indeed, al Qaeda's critique of globalism is in some ways very similar to the one espoused by Alex Jones."

This is another zinger from the catalog of Government/Mass Media talking points i.e. ~"The 9/11 Truth people are in cahoots with the Terrorists." That tactic is really so transparent and convenient.

S. Ferguson brought these two points, if I represent her points fairly. Correct me if I'm wrong:

9/11 Truthers don't admit the fear which comes with being an American, i.e. one who rips off the rest of the world. And they are too timid to experience the guilty fear of potential retribution, so they escape into a fantasy ~ the government did it. Isn't that oh so more comforting?


S. Ferguson also promotes the idea 9/11 truthers agree with the "terrorists" and the 3rd world people whom we, as a "country," have wronged. (obviously not personally) (And to be more exact it's not really our "government" who does the wrong, but a global, probably corporate, but definitely private, elite who have highjacked the U.S.A. and its Media.)

These two things contradict. If we don't accept that there are "terrorists" how do we side with them? These Talking Points basically call us traitors.

How can we both be too weak to admit that the rest of the world is against us - - that they hate us, and at the same time be allied with those very same foreign America haters?

The psychology and projection in this becomes very obvious.

One can believe the rest of the world has reason to hate us, and would like to strike back AND that the U.S. government engineered this 9/11 strike as a pretext for a pre-emptive war, to get its Empire straight and to create a means to toughen up against dissent/"terrorists" here at home. 9/11 Truth actually fits both critique. If "we" mess up other countries without compunction for so many years, isn't it logical "we" will also eventually turn on our own? Why should the average citizen have immunity from the psycopaths obviously in charge for of foreign policy for decades? Isn't it logical that eventually "the birds would come home to roost" as Susan Sontag was pilloried for saying "too soon" after the time of the attack? She may have referred to an external "terrorist" threat, but the reasoning applies equally to one by our own Establishment.

The Talking Point "Terrorist" = 9/11 Truth refer back to the frame of fear-mongering and pride in America, in spite of the irrationality of it.

The real accusation against 9/11 Truth is that we are shunned because we don't turn a blind eye to whatever our "government" does to supposedly secure our "way of life?"

Actually we admit and cry out - our government is not on our side - which is extremely traditional American. America, as it stands now, is not on the side of the rest of the world either. But this breaks down our most prized illusions about ourselves.

To my stunned amazement American guilt and fear: fear which derives from that guilt and which is also purposefully instigated, combines with conformist thinking and strikes blind many USA-ers, and all "pundits," from Right and Left both."

911 litmus test exposes the CIA

Nice work Peggy.

I am reading “Towers of deception” by Barry Zwicker (highly recommended) in which he comprehensively demolishes left gatekeeper Noam Chomsky, and in his speaking engagements points out many occasions where the alternate media has marched in lockstep - the Kennedy murders being among the more obvious. When CIA Director William Casey bragged that the CIA had control of all of the significant media in the US he knew what he was talking about. All the manufactured outrage of the left translated into “Vote Democrat” by these, the voices of conscience, is being exposed by 911 Truth. It’s not rocket science, high school physics is sufficient to expose the government/corporate lies, and yet so many journalists I used to think were on “our side” are either incapable of figuring it out, or, alas, part of the controlled opposition.

The fact that we are now more than a third of the population demonstrates conclusively that we don’t need these people - they have made themselves irrelevant by their abject failure to report the truth, or even to allow any consideration of alternatives to the government propaganda. Good riddance, I say. They will never regain credibility in my eyes.

Thomas Jefferson said that we would need a revolution every twenty years or so to preserve our freedoms, and he may have been right about that.

I was living no-tech in the forest in Australia when the towers came down, and for several years thereafter, and also I grew up in England so I have been exposed to far less propaganda than most of the people in the Truth movement. It was relatively easy for me to embrace the truth when I returned to civilization. I am humbled by the millions of others who managed to break through the conditioning and find their way out of the web of deceit. Truth is powerful beyond anything the opposition has to offer, and for this reason we will win, and Sarah Ferguson and her ilk will be lucky to get a job in the organic veggie burger bar.

The Village Voice was recently bought out...

and I'm sure you all know why...

the sad thing is most people don't even realize a change in ownership took place, and that the new management basically was interested in using the traditionally very liberal left Voice to fool people into swallowing the new bullshit based on the old reputation.


"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