Dishonest 'debunking' of 911 conspiracy questioners (Counterpunch rebuttal)

Dishonest 'debunking' of 911 conspiracy questioners

Dear Ms Johnstone,

I write concerning your article in the Sept 15/06 edition of Counterpunch, 9/11: In Theory and in Fact, In Defense of Conspiracy.

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...)


Thanks, Dave.

Pretty good response, tho I

Pretty good response, tho I fail to see why people seem to insist that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
But more importantly, I think it is imperative that the entire 9/11 truth movement finally say no
to the very very disruptive and hurtful "no planers", who seek nothing more than to destroy
and bury this great movement. How such a dishonest, blatantly false, and intellectually degrading
posit as "no planes hit the towers/it was all cartoons" made by a few individuals could have such
an extremely damaging and divisive effect is beyond me...but I think it shows how not everyone in the movement are about truth or justice, but merely to spew forth "Jews did it" and "no planes" as somehow the gospel, while calling everyone else "disinfo". I think it's time the movement grow some responsibility balls
and using the same fervor used to scrutinize the government and media, to use against those who wish to infiltrate us and cause us harm, as well as those that spend their waking moments trying to slander and "debunk" us with the hateful passion of a vengeful war mongerer.

The "debunkers", the "Jews did it" and the "no planers" I feel are clearly no friends of the 9/11 activist movement.

At least for me, pretty much

At least for me, pretty much all questions are open - all I really want is some kind of reliable independent investigation to the whole thing - re the planes, I don't want to get into an old argument, but you should have a read of this, it is quite interesting -

Jews and Zionists are not the same thing...

"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."

And there is NOTHING Wrong With Either Jews OR Zionists

Zionists believe in the State of israel, which as a historical fact existed thousands of years ago, prior to their expulsion by the Romans. By contrast, there has never been a Palestinian state, and the word Palestine was used by the British to refer to a territorial area, and derives from the word "Philistines" used in the Hebrew Torah (other relgions have adopted this text as the "Old Testament").

As such, there is much more historical justification for the existence of Israel, than there is for the United States.

There WERE injustices against both Arabs and Jews that resulted from the re-establishment of Israel (amount the same number of Jews and Arabs lost their homes). Since that time, Israelis have focused on getting a life and creating a modern country, rather than strapping bombs on their children, and justifying it based upon the loss of olive trees.

It mystifies me that the 9/11 truth movement would want to weaken itself with either the "no planes" theory, or the Mel Gibson redux "Worldwide Zionist Control" theory.

There is nothing wrong with being a Jew.
There is nothing wroing with being an American, and accepting the existence of the United States.
There is nothing wrong with being a Zionist, and accepting the existence of the State Of Israel.

The apartheid "state" of

The apartheid "state" of Israel was built on savage ethnic cleansing and terrorism against the native population. Its modus operandi is child-killing. It's the most foul state on God's earth. Go pimp your Zionist propaganda elsewhere, bigot.

This Forum is for 9/'11 Truth, Not Mel Gibson Rants

Why don't you focus on 9/11 in this forum - obviously you have some pretty serious issues with regard to Jews, israel, and Zionism that are best worked out elsewhere. It can only hurt the 9/11 Truth Movement to drag in your Mel Gibson rants into venue.

However, for the record, however, one could point out such facts as how the United States is essentially based upon the complete and deliberate displacement of indigenous peoples, and that Christianity recognizes the historical occupation by native Jews (including Jesus and his disciples) in Israel prior to it's breakup by the Roman Empire.

Finally, one could point out that that the Israelis are not strapping explosives on their youth and sending them into markets. If this statement makes you angry, perhaps you can refute it.

Israel has every right in

Israel has every right in the world to exist. that said, the Israeli government and intelligence agencies employ some of the most deplorable people on the planet. Israeli youth doesnt have to strap explosives on themeselves because they have a military that does all the killing for them. we, as american taxpayers, pay for that military. that is disgusting. Netanyahu would kill 3000 more americans if it meant more power/sympathy. Mel Gibson rant? hardly.

Shalom, you make it sound as

Shalom, you make it sound as if adult Palestinian routinely strap explosives on to small children.Can you verify one incident of this? There have have been many reports,from independent news sources and the U.N., of Israeli soldiers intentionaly targeting and killing young children. A modest estimate is that every year, since 2001, over a hundred children under 17 die this way.
As far as those olive trees, well it would be merely senseless and disgusting to destroy trees in an impoverished land that is mostly desert, but those orchards were needed by those people to survive and support themselves.They were their means of feeding their families.It's like the way the Israelis are currently not allowing the fisherman access to the ocean.It is act of warfare and collective punishment against civilians including children Also, you left out the part about the bulldozing of the homes ,sometimes with the families still in them ,along with the trees. So to say that the Palestinians are upset about trees is a gross mis-representation. Oh ,and yes the Israeli people are getting on with their modern lives,because they're allowed to have one.
Yes the U.S."displaced the indigenous population" here. Thats quite a euphimism. it was a sad shameful part of our history. To say,"Yeah' well, there was a lot of losses on both sides" would be ridiculous.
To try to white wash or justify any of it would be wrong.
The Israeli government does not have the monopoly on treating Arabs and Muslims as less than human. The U.S. should have never just gone in and bombed the whole country of Afghanistan to catch one man, but should have just sent in Special Forces.( Of course ,the whole Osama thing was a ruse anyway..) I don't even need to go into the monumental suffering the Iraqi people, because it behooved this government, for whatever reason, to the attack their country. Here in the U.S, there are millions of Christians,Muslims ,and Jews ,living peacefuly, right now. Of course it"s possible, because all these religions advocate PEACE. and the people who truly practice these religions are peaceful. It helps that we don't have (as of now ,or none that are very obvious) forces from the government commiting acts of racist murder, causing lethal in-equality and inciting us against each-other.The violent and racist thinking of our government and military commanders needs to go the way of the dinosuars.White washing and justifying heinous acts against populations isn't going to help.

Olbermann and Turley RIP the Prez.

Olbermann: Bush's 'rush' to redefine Geneva Conventions may be mostly about 'covering his own backside'

David Edwards / Raw Story | September 18 2006

Keith Olbermann's Friday broadcast on MSNBC featured a long look at the President's contentious Rose Garden press conference on Friday, dubbing it the "Roast Garden," and then pondered whether Bush's urgency to redefine the Geneva Convention had more to do with "covering his own backside" than anything else.

Olbermann continues to be the only cable news man that still cares about the constitution. in a sea of rightwing republican bobbleheads he continues to be the only person who even comes close to telling it like it is.

I agree

I agree, and this appeal by the neo-cons to some misguided sense of "sovereignty" in ignoring the Geneva conventions is just silly, and disingenuous coming from the same administration that signed us in to the SPP!

The Constitution does allow for Congress to make treaties like the Geneva conventions, and provides a process for doing so - which was followed. Treaties that are signed constitutionally, and do not infringe the unalienable rights of the people as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are binding as law.

As for Olbermann, it is pretty clear to me that his perspective is right on, and that he is most likely aware of 9/11.

Roberts has it about right.

War Criminal at Bay
by Paul Craig Roberts


President George Bush, betrayed by the neoconservatives whom he elevated to power and by his Attorney General, Torture Gonzales who gave him wrong legal advice, is locked in a desperate struggle with the Republican Congress to save himself from war crimes charges at the expense of America’s reputation and our soldiers’ fate.

Beguiled by neoconservatives, who told him that the virtuous goals of the American empire justified any means, and misled by an incompetent Attorney General, who told him that the President of the US is above the law, Bush was deceived into committing war crimes under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention and the US War Crimes Act of 1996. Bush is now desperately trying to save himself by having the US Congress retroactively repeal both Article 3 and US law.

Under the US Constitution retroactive law is without force, but desperate men will try anything.

A Really Excellent Response

I plan on using elements of this letter to respond in kind to the ever growing list of left-gatekeeping, hit-piece producing, government paid, hypocritical, anti-american shills.

no prob

no prob with using parts of it - a link to either the original letter as given at the top, or my own homepage would be appreciated!
keep fighting - we're gonna win this one.

no planes

After watching Alex Jones Bohemian Grove video where the leaders of our "civilized" world howl like devils at the mock (i am hoping) human sacrifice known as "the sacrifice of care", I am now open to the three fly saucer theory at the world trade center.

You got it Dave...

I'll make sure it's fully attributed. Great letter dude!

Run-on extraveganza?

Nice article. I think they could have done a little better job with the grammar. Run on after run on after run on.

“No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.” ~Edmund Burke

Strong evidence of controlled demolition

Many arguments for CD are inferences. Eg, free fall speed, black smoke, sulphur residue which deniers can "debunk" using excuses like the weight was too much, sulphur already present in other wall material, black smoke caused due to plastic burning (see screw loose change for some attempts )

However, to me it seems this is IRREFUTABLE:

The angular cut could have NEVER occurred naturally. It would have buckled under natural pressure. To CUT the column in a STRAIGHT LINE requires something other than gravity

Can someone please authenticate this image.

dz please post as real post I left my password at home ...

Free Fall is not an inference - it is an ABSOLUTE proof of CD!

I need to correct you on this:

The proof needed is in the video of the collapse (and the millions of
eye witnesses who say it). The building material was pulverized,
blown away from the building and it fell at free fall speed.
Absolutely impossible without well placed charges throughout the

This picture is definitely further proof of CD, but it is not as conclusive as the fact of free-fall.

The Enemy

Remember that the enemy is not just the people who planned and carried out 9/11. The enemy is also the MSM and controlled left who are complicit in treason, mass murder, and obstruction of justice.

9/11 Coverup: An Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove

( Message below was sent to:

Dear Ms. Johnstone:

I find your article “9/11: In Theory and In Fact” very beguiling, because it does try to strike a moderate tone, and approaches the subject in a structured way, and explores both the “meta-physical” (i.e., psychology and geo-political motivation) and “physical” (questions of demolition of WTC, impact at Pentagon) dimensions.

However, I must tell you in all honesty that I find your article only skims the surface in these two areas. In the “metaphysical” domain, you spend a lot of ink in speculating about the motivation of the truth movement (leaning a lot on their motives), the choice of targets (why not attack the Statue of Liberty and a few football stadiums, instead of the WTC towers and the Pentagon ?), and the psychology of the Arab pilot “warriors. You ignore the fact that these “pilots” were cokeheads, gamblers, and customers of whores (hardly the mindset of religious suicide zealots) whose piloting skills were next to zero: without any real expertise, you assume it was no big deal to hit the WTC towers, and totally ignore the “Top Gun” skills required to hit the Pentagon with an aircraft several feet off th e ground.

In the physical domain, you never really address the significant PHYSICAL evidence that is so overwhelming, and which IS in fact the primary motivation of scientists such as Steven Jones. If you had at least indicated that you had thought about the pools of molten metal at the base of THREE structures on 9/11, or at least acknowledged that the “photographic evidence” at the Pentagon really is pretty hard to accept, you would be more credible.

It is interesting that you and other gentle “de-bunkers” always look at 9/11 from the standpoint of “he says, she says”, and never acknowledge that the government has access to all the physical evidence, photographs and videos thereof, and has spent perhaps $20,000,000 of our money, and have come up with the most seedy, dishonest, and incomplete narratives of 9/11. If you had at least acknowledged that we SHOULD and MUST ask for a complete, thorough, and impartial investigation of what happened on 9/11, you would truly appear to be even-handed.

It is paradoxical that you do express your belief that the official conspiracy theory of the JFK assassination is a lie, and implicitly accept that the US government HAS been successful in suppressing a leak from the perps that is devastating to the ridiculous lies of the Warren Commission. As such, since you seem to accept that a conspiracy to MURDER President Kennedy was carried out successfully, you should not have problems with the motive, opportunity, and success criteria for an inside 9/11 job.

Mixed in with all of this, of course, must be the occasional side-swipes at Israel and Zionism: while coming up with elaborate justifications that let the Bush administration off the hook for 9/11, we cannot let pass any opportunity to talk about, and anguish over, the poor Palestinian suicide bombers.

The most reasonable people in the 9/11 truth movement recognize that one way to deflect the real questions about 9/11 is to cite the “no-planers” (holograms “hit” the WTC !) and or the Mel Gibson redux “Zionist World Conspiracy” claims, and the fact that you play this game proves that your article tries to put a iron fist in a velvet glove.

We don't have time for these people.

We need to cut to the chase, but quick.

For those who have honestly studied the evidence, the motive and
method of the perpetrators are clear, and the suspect that best
matches is the Bush Administration backed by members of the military
and corporate movers and shakers.

But to those innocent people who still buy the official story, the
greatest obstacle in breaking the spell placed on them is getting them
to accept that their government - that they have been raised to see as
the great protectors of the American Dream and pioneers of freedom,
liberty and democracy - could have carried out such malicious acts.

How do you break the spell? By removing the implication and asking
the direct question:

Who setup and executed the controlled demolitions of the WTC1, WTC2
and WTC7?

It has been is proved that they were brought down by controlled
demolition. The evidence is overwhelming. One need only look at the
videos for proof:

- by far the greater part of the diffuse low temperature fires was
above not below the plane impact zone
- they fell at free fall speeds
- the majority of the falling building material was blown away from
the building during the collapse and therefore could not contribute
to accelerating the collapse. (not that it would have been able to
destroy the building even if it had rather fallen straight down)

Add to this the evidence of Steve Jones and the proof is irrefutable.
There are no other plausible explanations: it is black and white.
Thus it makes a cornerstone question, a hurdle that cannot be jumped
by the Chomsky's and the Johnstone's of the world who seek to confuse the
issue by throwing doubts about political motive and implausibility due
to the scale of the crime. Bypass all that and ask the most damning
question: who blew those damn buildings to kingdom come?

With the inevitable answer all the other pieces fall into place
perfectly. Open and shut case.

Screw Loose Change is

Screw Loose Change is debunked

That Johnstone ariticle was

That Johnstone ariticle was the weakest debunking I've ever read. What does she say "perhaps there were no SOPs for hijacked jets"... "perhaps" , she didn't bother to find out?!!