The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers

This writeup is actually a few days old and probably posted here somewhere already, but since it is now on the CBS News Website, I thought it was worth posting again. Don't forget to follow this link and leave your comments.  Thanks to FHB:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/opinion/main2242387.shtml

According to a July poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East. This is at once alarming and unsurprising. Alarming, because if tens of millions of Americans really believe their government was complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens, they seem remarkably sanguine about this fact. By and large, life continues as before, even though tens of millions of people apparently believe they are being governed by mass murderers. Unsurprising, because the government these Americans suspect of complicity in 9/11 has acquired a justified reputation for deception: weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping. What else are they hiding?

This pattern of deception has not only fed diffuse public cynicism but has provided an opening for alternate theories of 9/11 to flourish. As these theories — propounded by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement — seep toward the edges of the mainstream, they have raised the specter of the return (if it ever left) of what Richard Hofstadter famously described as "the paranoid style in American politics." But the real danger posed by the Truth Movement isn't paranoia. Rather, the danger is that it will discredit and deform the salutary skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders.

The Truth Movement's recent growth can be largely attributed to the Internet-distributed documentary "Loose Change." A low-budget film produced by two 20-somethings that purports to debunk the official story of 9/11, it's been viewed over the Internet millions of times. Complementing "Loose Change" are the more highbrow offerings of a handful of writers and scholars, many of whom are associated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Two of these academics, retired theologian David Ray Griffin and retired Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, have written books and articles that serve as the movement's canon. Videos of their lectures circulate among the burgeoning portions of the Internet devoted to the cause of the "truthers." A variety of groups have chapters across the country and organize conferences that draw hundreds. In the last election cycle, the website www.911truth.org even produced a questionnaire with pointed inquiries for candidates, just like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the Sierra Club. The Truth Movement's relationship to the truth may be tenuous, but that it is a movement is no longer in doubt.

Truth activists often maintain they are simply "raising questions," and as such tend to focus with dogged persistence on physical minutiae: the lampposts near the Pentagon that should have been knocked down by Flight 77, the altitude in Pennsylvania at which cellphones on Flight 93 should have stopped working, the temperature at which jet fuel burns and at which steel melts. They then use these perceived inconsistencies to argue that the central events of 9/11 — the plane hitting the Pentagon, the towers collapsing — were not what they appeared to be. So: The eyewitness accounts of those who heard explosions in the World Trade Center, combined with the facts that jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at 2,500, shows that the towers were brought down by controlled explosions from inside the buildings, not by the planes crashing into them.

If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.

To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism. But the example of the Reichstag fire itself is instructive. While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the U.S. government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist. That fact changes little about the Nazi regime, or its use of the fire for its own ends. It's true the Nazis were the chief beneficiaries of the fire, but that doesn't mean they started it, and the same goes for the Bush Administration and 9/11.

The Reichstag example also holds a lesson for those who would dismiss the very notion of a conspiracy as necessarily absurd. It was perfectly reasonable to suspect the Nazis of setting the fire, so long as the evidence suggested that might have been the case. The problem isn't with conspiracy theories as such; the problem is continuing to assert the existence of a conspiracy even after the evidence shows it to be virtually impossible.

In March 2005 Popular Mechanics assembled a team of engineers, physicists, flight experts and the like to critically examine some of the Truth Movement's most common claims. They found them almost entirely without merit. To pick just one example, steel might not melt at 1,500 degrees, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, but it does begin to lose a lot of its strength, enough to cause the support beams to fail.

And yet no amount of debunking seems to work. The Internet empowers people with esoteric interests to spend all kinds of time pursuing their hobbies, and if the Truth Movement was the political equivalent of Lord of the Rings fan fiction or furries, there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention. But the public opinion trend lines are moving in the truthers' direction, even after the official 9/11 Commission report was supposed to settle the matter once and for all.

Of course, the ommission report was something of a whitewash — Bush would only be interviewed in the presence of Dick Cheney, the commission was denied access to other key witnesses, and just this year we learned of a meeting convened by George Tenet the summer before the attacks to warn Condoleezza Rice about al Qaeda's plotting, a meeting that was nowhere mentioned in the report.

So it's hard to blame people for thinking we're not getting the whole story. For six years, the government has prevaricated and the press has largely failed to point out this simple truth. Critics like The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann might lament the resurgence of the "paranoid style," but the seeds of paranoia have taken root partly because of the complete lack of appropriate skepticism by the establishment press, a complementary impulse to the paranoid style that might be called the "credulous style."

In the credulous style all political actors are acting with good intentions and in good faith. Mistakes are made, but never because of ulterior motives or undue influence from the various locii of corporate power. When people in power advocate strenuously for a position it is because they believe in it. When their advocacy leads to policies that create misery, it is due not to any evil intentions or greed or corruption, but rather simple human error. Ahmad Chalabi summed up this worldview perfectly. Faced with the utter absence of the WMD he and his cohorts had long touted in Iraq, he replied, "We are heroes in error."

For a long time the credulous style has dominated the establishment, but its hold intensified after 9/11. When the government speaks, particularly about the Enemy, it must be presumed to be telling the truth. From the reporting about Iraq's alleged WMD to the current spate of stories about how "dangerous" Iran is, time and again the press has reacted to official pronouncements about threats with a near total absence of skepticism. Each time the government announces the indictment of domestic terrorists allegedly plotting our demise, the press devotes itself to the story with obsessive relish, only to later note, on page A22 or in a casual aside, that the whole thing was bunk.

In August 2003, to cite just one example, the New York dailies breathlessly reported what one U.S. official called an "incredible triumph in the war against terrorism," the arrest of Hemant Lakhani, a supposed terrorist mastermind caught red-handed attempting to acquire a surface-to-air missile. Only later did the government admit that the "plot" consisted of an FBI informant begging Lakhani to find him a missile, while a Russian intelligence officer called up Lakhani and offered to sell him one.

Yet after nearly a dozen such instances, the establishment media continue to earnestly report each new alleged threat or indictment, secure in the belief that their proximity to policy-makers gets it closer to the truth. But proximity can obscure more than clarify. It's hard to imagine that the guy sitting next to you at the White House correspondents' dinner is plotting to, say, send the country into a disastrous and illegal war, or is spying on Americans in blatant defiance of federal statutes. Bob Woodward, the journalist with the most access to the Bush Administration, was just about the last one to realize that the White House is disingenuous and cynical, that it has manipulated the machinery of state for its narrow political ends.

Meanwhile, those who realized this was the White House's MO from the beginning have been labeled conspiracy theorists. During the 2004 campaign Howard Dean made the charge that the White House was manipulating the terror threat level and recycling old intelligence. The Bush campaign responded by dismissing Dean as a "bizarre conspiracy theorist." A year later, after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge retired, he admitted that Dean's charge was, indeed, the truth. The same accusation of conspiracy-mongering was routinely leveled at anyone who suggested that the war in Iraq was and is motivated by a desire for the United States to control the world's second-largest oil reserves.

For the Administration, "conspiracy" is a tremendously useful term, and can be applied even in the most seemingly bizarre conditions to declare an inquiry or criticism out of bounds. Responding to a question from NBC's Brian Williams as to whether he ever discusses official business with his father, Bush said such a suggestion was a "kind of conspiracy theory at its most rampant." The credulous style can brook no acknowledgment of unarticulated motives to our political actors, or consultations to which the public is not privy.

The public has been presented with two worldviews, one credulous, one paranoid, and both unsatisfactory. The more the former breaks apart, the greater the appeal of the latter. Conspiracy theories that claim to explain 9/11 are wrongheaded and a terrible waste of time, but the skeptical instinct is, on balance, salutary. It is right to suspect that the operations of government, the power elite and the military-industrial complex are often not what they seem; and proper to raise questions when the answers provided have been unconvincing. Given the untruths to which American citizens have been subjected these past six years, is it any surprise that a majority of them think the government's lying about what happened before and on 9/11?

Still, the persistent appeal of paranoid theories reflects a cynicism that the credulous media have failed to address, because they posit a world of good intentions and face-value pronouncements, one in which the suggestion that a government would mislead or abuse its citizens for its own gains or the gains of its benefactors is on its face absurd. The danger is that the more this government's cynicism and deception are laid bare, the more people — on the left in particular and among the public in general — will be drawn down the rabbit hole of delusion of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

To avoid such a fate, the public must come to trust that the gatekeepers of public discourse share their skepticism about the agenda its government is pursuing. The antidote, ultimately, to the Truth Movement is a press that refuses to allow the government to continue to lie.

I'm tired...

Of responding to hit pieces. If they had something similar to "equal time", I would write something.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

haha no kidding man. I wish

haha no kidding man. I wish some of these reporters would just kick the bucket and stop filling our ears with garbage. How about this line, "To avoid such a fate, the public must come to trust that the gatekeepers of public discourse share their skepticism about the agenda its government is pursuing."

Trust has to be earned ya douchebags!

I saw it on...

"All In The Family." Someone said something on the television, and Archie called the station and said, "I demand equal time", and they let him on. I don't think it works like that though.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

I say we ignore the

I say we ignore the mainstream media exactly the way they have ignored viewpoints that didn't fit their agenda. Their days are numbered anyway.

???

What will Happen to the MSM when the truth comes out to the world??

Good question

I think about that one sometime. Unfortunately... the answer is probably nothing. Look what happened when the truth came out about WMD's. The MSM pushed this in a major way and they've been completely unscathed by it. In fact, they (like Bush) find humor in it.

I think ultimately, all of this will be blamed on Bush & Cheney. I think they will be the fall guys. I have no idea when.. or what will happen to them.

Actually that's not true, I do have an idea of what might happen, but I'm not stupid enough to put all of my ideas in writing.

Right about the b.s. WMDs. But I'll never buy the NY Times

again as long as I live!

that's up to us the people...

Will we give them a pass, or will we demand to know what they knew and when they knew it? They are clearly complicit. People like Wolf Blitzer, Tucker Carlson, and Anderson Cooper belong in prison. While that may not happen, I think one thing we can push for is to have a LOT of broadcast licenses revoked and certain people banned for life from using the public airwaves. Look, we have been at war now for 5 years, and though no one wants to say it, it is a low level, maybe "cold" civil war. There will have to be tribunals--this is going to take years but are we going to let people get away with complicity in war crimes? Nonsense. Don't let the immensity of what is going to happen intimidate you--the perps are counting on that being the case--they will claim that people just want to "move on", etc. BS. We want justice, and we will have it. We will elect people who will pledge to defend America and get every last accomplice into at the very least some kind of plea bargain. International alliances will have to be rethought, and reparations extracted from governments that had a hand in working with our homegrown traitors.

This is not a game, this is not a hobby. This is reality--and Truthers of all people now know that reality is what those with the will decide to make it. We must demand a reality based on truth, not lies. On accountability, not slippery slaps on the wrist for the corrupt. We are going to retake our country from criminals, and for this we will have to keep working and educating and reaching out to people.

The choice is ours--as truth pioneers we have a unique opportunity to set the terms of this national transformation--if we don't think big, you know that others will. When the existing order teeters from the revelations coming down the pipe, we must be there to push it over the edge, and fill in the vacuum of legitimacy and power. This is OUR moment--don't settle for anything but a full acounting and real justice.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Also

If the MSM and Newspapers go out of business, Wouldnt it be a good idea to short there stock?

Show "You have always been tired of the truth" by Anonymous (not verified)

Who...

Believes holograms hit the WTC? You must be thinking of someone else.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "You are on record" by Anonymous (not verified)

That...

Would be a lie. In fact, I challenge you to find any posting of mine ever that would indicate that.

How come rule #6 of my "9/11 Truther Forum" is "There is to be NO posting of articles regarding Holograms, CGI, Mini-Nukes, TV Fakery, and Space Beams?"



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

It's the opposite

Not only is Jon Gold not an avid "no planer", he's anti "no planers".

Example from his blog:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4122

And don't forget...

This one.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Jon Gold a no planer???

Bwahahahahaha!!!11

Show "Thou doth protest too much" by Anonymous (not verified)

so you're

Nico? Rosalie? — naw, Finten Dunne, right? Real question is this: whose Cayman Islands account is getting fattest, quickest??

The stupid anon is just trolling...

Don't feed him. Down his stupid posts and ignore it.

"Don't forget to follow this

"Don't forget to follow this link and leave your comments. "

Lovely thought, but not until I make a proxy hotmail account I can abandon. This is CBS and they DO NOT let you post without registering.

Yeah, that Jenny, always on about security...

Still, thanks for the post.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Hey Jenny, if you're keen on

Hey Jenny, if you're keen on security you should check out Tor/Privoxy. It was intitally a Navy project and now it's opensource. It allows anonymous browsing of the web. I can gaurantee that the NSA is profiling every single one of our habits online. This gives you back the right of privacy.

tor.eff.org/

Spread the word.

Cheers. Will give it a

Cheers. Will give it a look.

I feel a duty to respond...

To the editorial staff of "The Nation":

Here's what I don't understand. It's bad enough that you are clearly not advocates of 9/11 Truth... but why do self-professed gatekeepers (like the Nation) feel the need to attack the 9/11 Truth Movement? Why not just shut-up about it? What do you possibly hope to gain by going after us? Especially considering that we ARE RIGHT... and you are soooo very WRONG.

The article, by Christopher Hayes entitled "9/11: The Roots of Paranoia" is poorly written, poorly researched, highly opinionated and is replete with circular logic. In a word... it is WEAK. Why the Nation continues to tempt fate by lending credibility to these "conspiracy deniers" is beyond me.

Mr. Hayes even acknowledges that "one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen." I have no doubt that the number is much larger, but let's just say it's only one-third. Clearly the majority of this group are going to be so-called "progressive thinkers". These are the people most likely to actually read "the Nation". Why risk alienating up to a 1/3 or more of your core readers? It just doesn't make any sense! I for one feel thoroughly alienated by the Nation. Quite frankly, given the importance of this topic, you sicken me!

Here's a snippet from the article that I find particularly detestable:

"The Reichstag example holds a lesson for those who would dismiss the very notion of a conspiracy as necessarily absurd. It was perfectly reasonable to suspect the Nazis of setting the fire, so long as the evidence suggested that might have been the case. The problem isn't with conspiracy theories as such; the problem is continuing to assert the existence of a conspiracy even after the evidence shows it to be virtually impossible." [end]

Here Mr. Hayes actually attempts to deny being a "conspiracy denier". Rather he says the evidence has shown that a 9/11 conspiracy is "virtually impossible". Enter "Popular Mechanics" stage left to proove his extremely bold (and reckless) assertion of fact. It's important to note that Mr. Hayes does not rely on the "official" 9/11 commission report to prove his assertion; rather, he goes on to claim that the 9/11 "commission report was something of a whitewash". Huh!?!?

Come on Mr. Hayes... you cannot have it both ways. Why the HELL would the government feel the need to publish a whitewash account of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, while leaving it to "Popular Mechanics" to publish the definitive thesis which purportedly provides evidence showing any conspiracy to be "virtually impossible"? It doesn't even make any sense!

Mr. Hayes then goes on to acknowledge that "for six years, the government has prevaricated and the press has largely failed to point out [the] simple truth". But just when you think you cannot stand any more, get a load of his final paragraph:

"the public must come to trust that the gatekeepers of public discourse share their skepticism about the agenda its government is pursuing. The antidote, ultimately, to the Truth Movement is a press that refuses to allow the government to continue to lie."

While acknowleging that you (the Nation) are indeed "GATEKEEPERS of public discourse", he asserts that this is okay because you (presumably the Nation) "refuse to allow the government to continue to lie".

I don't know where to start? Bush has proven himself to be nothing but a liar. Most recently he acknowledged as much when he admitted lying about replacing Rumsfeld. Where is the outrage from the Nation about this blatant lie? Why is the Nation devoting more valuable space targeting the Truth Movement?

Of course there is no mention in Mr. Hayes' article of Steven Jones, Thermate, WTC7, lack of pentagon plane parts, squibs, free fall collapses, war games, follow-up military grade anthrax attacks, etc. etc. etc. But then again... you ARE the "gatekeepers of public discourse". Therefore, you determine what is proper to discuss. Do I have it right?

The reality is that you people are a DISGRACE to "the Nation" and you should be ashamed of yourselves! One day soon, your hypocrisy will be laid bare for all the world to see. May God have mercy on your souls!

Please publish this!

Chris Rose

Show "Do you feel proud?" by Anonymous (not verified)

Thanks Troll

I must have done something right for you to take notice.

Show "If confirming what The Nation wrote is right, you did." by Anonymous (not verified)

Just because I'm not paranoid...

doesn't mean that 9/11 was NOT an inside job.

Follow the evidence my friend. Wherever it may lead. That is what the Nation is failing to do. Rather, they are attacking a movement built upon and ultimately committed to the unadulterated search for truth. The very bedrock of "objectivity".

Eventhough the Nation acknowledges that the government will lie and "whitewash", they still call the Truth Movement "paranoid". It's like blaming a battered wife for flinching when her husband makes a fist.

Since when has it become the role of the so-called "fourth estate" to attack those searching for the truth? Instead of joining us in our patriotic quest, the Nation is pissing in the fan and telling its progressive base that it's raining. For that, they will surely rue the day.

They will rue the day!!!

Show "You are not searching for the truth." by Anonymous (not verified)

the poop on the truth

and supporting it starts here: if you're on the so-called "left" and actually draw a salary or commissions you can live on from your writing, teaching, lecturing or whatever, you're one lucky little sod -- 911 as an inside job is an open secret -- but 911 truth is the academic, political and media 3rd rail -- acknowledge it and your career is cinders...or worse -- no "deep throats" stepping out from the shadows is most likely because they know the last words they may ever hear are, "sorry, you know too much" -- the gang that did 911 is more ruthless than any gangsters Mario Puzo could ever dream up -- when Dubya heard "Angle is Next" he probably dropped his breakfast right in his shoes.

Explain, please

Hey anonymous, explain how Chris Rose confirmed what the Nation wrote is right. Conclusions are not arguments. If you cannot explain, please do not pollute the Internet with more empty words. Thank you.

we're winning!

Mr backslash!
He's now been posting everyday for at least a month and has yet to register!
Wants us to think he's multiple people!
No one believes you anymore, mr. backslash!
We're winning!

And notice how he's gotten a

And notice how he's gotten a bit (just a bit) more polite and erudite(for him, that is)?

We've been seeing very little pure personal attacks or that gem where he posted "fag" for pages. I think he's worried we might ban anonymous posts any day now so he's on his best behavior.

Don't believe it, dz!

Show "In denial" by Anonymous (not verified)

I agree with your post.

But I think the article writer has a point and then looses it again.

"While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the U.S. government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist."

If the Nazi conspiracy of setting the Reichtag on fire has been debunked among historians.

We still have the other conspiracy. The conspiracy of blaming the Reichtag fire on the Nazis.

awesome response CR

You are right--they are tempting fate--they are betting on their version of events winning out. They are choosing... poorly--and we can never ever let them or anyone else forget.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

SOMEBODY TIVO SLEEPER CELL ON SHOWTIME

I am watching showtime and I think they took a swipe at the 9/11 truth movement. A girl and a guy (terrorist) was sitting down after having sex, and the girl said something about "this is a big FUCK YOU to the Bush/Cheyney who engineered 9/11, you know they had to make sure the homing detection was on for the planes hit the building. you know they did it from the 23rd floor from building 7. I mean who really thinks that Osama Bin Ladin out smarted the military, the pentagon and government from a cave" Or it was something to that effect. SOMEBODY PLEASE TAPE SLEEPER CELL ON SHOWTIME

you don't need to tape it...

you don't need to tape it... it'll be on torrenty spy or some other torrent site shortly... i'll definately download it when it comes out... i wouldn't be surprised if people put this up on youtube or something

yeah, I saw that

yeah, I saw that too....seemed quite out of context in relation to the scene in my opinion..wonder why it was said?

I challenge anyone...

To find me a fair assessment of the 9/11 Truth Movement in ANY of the mainstream outlets.

CBSNews, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, ABCNews, Fox News, and so on.

Every single piece about us that has come out of any of those outlets has been a "hit piece" in one form or another.

How about just posting the "unanswered questions" submitted by the family members? I doubt they would even do that.

Hey newbies... what does it say that every single solitary piece about the 9/11 Truth Movement from the maintream media is a "hit piece?"



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "What is fair?" by Anonymous (not verified)

Is there...

A cover-up being perpetrated by the United States Government in regards to 9/11?



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Is there?" by Anonymous (not verified)

So that's it then?

Your best chance to "discredit" me is to associate me with the idiocy of Nico Haupt? That's funny.



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

Show "Is there a coverup?" by Anonymous (not verified)

Still waiting. Is there a coverup?

Cat still got your tongue, Jon?

Welcome aboard, CBS!

I'm convinced that everytime they mention "Loose Change," our numbers go up considerably. And, as you know, I have no trouble naming names, so here goes:

My dearest ex-girlfriend, 'Stella', is the Chief scenic designer on "the Young and the Restless," there in the heart of LA. Now, this has got to be the dumbest show I've ever watched, but she loves it and says it's ten times better than pushing a pencil over at Warner Bros. She ought to have a show called "Everybody loves Stella," as I'm sure they ALL agree, but you know what they say about the TV medium!

Anyway, I was really freaked-out after I left NYC with agents on my tail, and I surely shared every nuiance of my WTC horror stories with her, (if my $400. a month phone bills were any indicator.) But today, even with ALL THE EVIDENCE WE NEED, she's STILL not convinced there is such a thing as a "Government Cover-up!"

-Go figure why we call it "La-La land."

~First they ridicule you, then you look for better ways to be entertained!

What do you mean by "I left NYC with agents on my tail?

?

Jeebus

I read this garbage a couple days ago, it actually made me sleepy LOL, most of the hit pieces are poorly written and come from the MSM whoars

And this one tries to play

And this one tries to play catch up by awkwardly straddling the fence between rising public suspicion and "those wacky Truthers". It's right about this though:

"The antidote, ultimately, to the Truth Movement is a press that refuses to allow the government to continue to lie."

Yeah, shills, if the MSM had been doing it's bloody job we wouldn't need to be here.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

You got that right Col.

You got that right Col. Jenny!

On page two, they call it

On page two, they call it the "ommission report." I took a screen shot, incase they correct this slip. Funny stuff... I guess.

"Of course, the ommission report was something of a whitewash — Bush would only be interviewed in the presence of Dick Cheney, the commission was denied access to other key witnesses, and just this year we learned of a meeting convened by George Tenet the summer before the attacks to warn Condoleezza Rice about al Qaeda's plotting, a meeting that was nowhere mentioned in the report. "

That is funny.

That is funny. Almost Freudian...

Too funny...

Albeit, it isn't spelled correctly, but it's still funny.

Here is the real "9/11 Omission Report" prepared by 911CitizensWatch.org



"I think that we have to look at these alternative groups and these alternative people who are continuing to make films and bring their research to the public."

Sally Regenhard - 9/11 Family Member

I don't believe it was a mistake.

This reads more like a closet truther testing the water. Too many hidden facts.

I looked at the version in

I looked at the version in The Nation, and it's spelled correctly. They didn't retype it, so someone removed the 'C' after doing a copy and paste.

I think that theory is a bit

I think that theory is a bit TOO optimistic. It's possible, but more likely the big media are suffering from self inflicted redundancy--that is down-sizing--wounds--they don't have the staff they had to edit as throroughly as the used to even ten years ago. Remember when it was notable to find a print mistake in a book? Now, fiction or non, you can count on at least a handful.

How's this for optimistic...

Perhaps we've got a closet Truther on the inside at CBS. This "mistake" is just a bit too clever. You know how clever we can be. ;-)

I also agree with a previous post that you can't print "LOOSE CHANGE" too often for me. I"ve got this theory... everytime the MSM mentions "LOOSE CHANGE" an angel get's his wings.

BTW... is'nt LC "Final Cu"t slated to premiere at Sundance next month? Perhaps this explains the sudden interest in the Truth Movement by the likes of CBS. Could also explain the "sudden" implosion of Scholars for Truth 9/11? Was our Manchurian Scholar (Jim Fetzer) suddenly "activiated"?

"This "mistake" is just a

"This "mistake" is just a bit too clever. "

Maybe, maybe---"omission" does look like something the MSM would TRY to avoid...

Well, It is an opinon piece.

So I take it with a grain of salt. Not to mention the nation probaly would have never carried the article if it hadn't bashed the truth a little.

I applaud him for what he said between the lines.

"In August 2003, to cite just one example, the New York dailies breathlessly reported what one U.S. official called an "incredible triumph in the war against terrorism," the arrest of Hemant Lakhani, a supposed terrorist mastermind caught red-handed attempting to acquire a surface-to-air missile. Only later did the government admit that the "plot" consisted of an FBI informant begging Lakhani to find him a missile, while a Russian intelligence officer called up Lakhani and offered to sell him one.

Yet after nearly a dozen such instances, the establishment media continue to earnestly report each new alleged threat or indictment, secure in the belief that their proximity to policy-makers gets it closer to the truth. But proximity can obscure more than clarify. It's hard to imagine that the guy sitting next to you at the White House correspondents' dinner is plotting to, say, send the country into a disastrous and illegal war, or is spying on Americans in blatant defiance of federal statutes. Bob Woodward, the journalist with the most access to the Bush Administration, was just about the last one to realize that the White House is disingenuous and cynical, that it has manipulated the machinery of state for its narrow political ends.

Meanwhile, those who realized this was the White House's MO from the beginning have been labeled conspiracy theorists. During the 2004 campaign Howard Dean made the charge that the White House was manipulating the terror threat level and recycling old intelligence. The Bush campaign responded by dismissing Dean as a "bizarre conspiracy theorist." A year later, after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge retired, he admitted that Dean's charge was, indeed, the truth. The same accusation of conspiracy-mongering was routinely leveled at anyone who suggested that the war in Iraq was and is motivated by a desire for the United States to control the world's second-largest oil reserves.

For the Administration, "conspiracy" is a tremendously useful term, and can be applied even in the most seemingly bizarre conditions to declare an inquiry or criticism out of bounds. Responding to a question from NBC's Brian Williams as to whether he ever discusses official business with his father, Bush said such a suggestion was a "kind of conspiracy theory at its most rampant." The credulous style can brook no acknowledgment of unarticulated motives to our political actors, or consultations to which the public is not privy."

Not too bad for a 'hit' piece. You gotta' keep chipping away, ya' know.

Well, of course

What is another conspiracy theory without wishing one into existence?

Priceless!

Nice catch!!

Funny. This same article is

Funny. This same article is the cover story of this week's The Nation, for those that subscribe:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061225/hayes

But, the title is a bit more cynical "9/11: The Roots of Paranoia"

Show "they got a 'rule' at" by RANDKILLER2006 (not verified)

new interview w/ ken jenkins

Thanks for posting this....

I'm a big fan of Ken's work and feel it doesn't get enough attention....he brings one of the best perspectives to the Truth movement....

you're welcome.

hope you spread it around.

1/3 of 300 million

Well, according to my calculations 1/3 of 300 million is 100 million. Now if you have a hundred million on the 9/11 truth band wagon you might think it would be getting a little more coverage from the mainstream media. To bad we don't actually have a free press in this country. There is a long road ahead of us to straighten out the mess we're in.

So does he entail that the

So does he entail that the "gatekeepers of the public disourse" are the happy-mediums for which we can alleviate the national cognitive dissonance. So we trust these mediums for what they are: gatekeepers. People woould be wise to remember that gates are usually kept closed; and we all know that this administration has had many behind-closed doors meetings. Bush and Cheney wouln't testify under oath for the 9-11Commission?

The author remains objective at the cost of his own sensibilties, like a student of Plato: he purports that absolute truth can only be understood by particular shamans, in Plato's time they would have been philosophers, now they are "gatekeepers". How about we use our reasoning abilites for ourselves, and then our free-speech to discuss these matters, then let the discourse of 9-11Truth run naturally. Is it that perhaps, the discourse of 9-11Truth is revolutionary in that it would bring about change if it wasn't so regulated and censored.

Then I say let freedom ring!

Right off the bat- Is it

Right off the bat-

Is it paranoia that the ISI funded the lead hijacker ?

Is it paranoia that the head of the isi was in the whitehouse on 9/11 ?

Is it paranoia that the air defence was surpressed for 1 hour 45 minutes ?

Is it paranoia that the pentagon plane impact has never been shown ?

Are whistle blowers such as sibel edmonds paranoid ?

some additional nuance for the NATION

Van der Lubbe was the patsy in the Reichstag fire. Seventy years later you have some "ex-CIA" types still utilizing him in this way. As well they might, considering what's at stake.
According to historians I've read, Van der Lubbe was *an* arsonist at the Reichstag, but not the lone arsonist and definitely not the arsonist responsible for the conflagration. More on why he was on the scene that night, below.
But for argument's sake allow for a moment that he was the *lone* arsonist. Even if he *were,* it is misleading to make that assertion in such a way as to suggest little or no Nazi involvement in the events of February 27, 1933.
Everything else indicates the Nazis were the only beneficiaries of the fire, as iconic in its day as 9/11 in ours.
First take the possibility he was the lone arsonist. He was below par mentally and therefore a person easily duped. It is interesting -- especially in light of the large body of circumstantial evidence pointing to Nazi complicity -- that those who claim or suggest that Van der Lubbe was the lone arsonist seldom if ever show any interest into whether he might have been manipulated. In any event, the "lone arsonist" theory does not conform to the facts.

Consider this from William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich (Touchstone Edition, 1990, p. 192-):

From Goering's Reichstag President's Palace an underground passage, built to carry the central heating system, ran to the Reichstag building. Through this tunnel Karl Ernst, a former hotel bellhop who had become the Berlin S.A. leader, led a small detachment of storm troopers on the night of February 27 to the Reichstag, where they quickly scattered gasoline and self-igniting chemicals and then made their way quickly back to the palace the way they had come. At the same time a half-witted Dutch Communist with a passion for arson, Marinus van der Lubbe, had made his way into the huge, darkened and to him unfamiliar building and set some small fires of his own. This feeble-minded pyromaniac was a godsend to the Nazis. He had been picked up by the S.A. a few days before after having been overheard in a bar boasting that he had attempted to set fire to several public buildings and that he was going to try the Reichstag next.

The coincidence that the Nazis had found a demented Communist arsonist who was out to do exactly what they themselves had determined to do seems incredible but is nevertheless supported by the evidence. The idea for the fire almost certainly originated at the top with Goebbels and Goering. Hans Gisevius, an official in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior at the time, testified at Nuremberg that 'it was Goebbels who first thought of setting the Reichstag on fre,' and Rudolph Diels, the Gestapo chief, added in an affidavit that 'Goering knew exactly how the fire was to be started' and had ordered him 'to prepare, prior to the fire, a list of people who were to be arrested immediately after it.' General Franz Halder, Chief of the German General Staff during the early part of World War II, recalled at Nurembrg how on one occasion Goering had boasted of his deed.

At a luncheon on the birthday of the Fuehrer in 1942 the conversation turned to the topic of the Reichstag building and its artistic value. I heard with my own ears when Goering interrupted the conversation and shouted: "The only one who really knows about the Reichstag is I, because I set it on fire!" With that he slapped his thigh with the flat of his hand.

Shirer writes (p. 193): "Van der Lubbe, it seems clear, was a dupe of the Nazis. He was encouraged to try to set the Reichstag on fire. But the main job was to be done -- without his knowledge of course -- by the storm troopers. Indeed it was established at the subsequent trial at Leipzig that the Dutch half-wit did not possess the means to set so vast a building on fire so quickly. Two and a half minutes after he entered, the great central hall was fiercely burning. He had only his shirt for tinder. The main fires, according to the testimony of experts at the trial, had been set with considerable quantities of chemicals and gasoline."
Consider that Vice-chancellor von Papen recalled that when he arrived at the blazing parliament buildings Goering was already on the scene shouting: "This is a communist crime..."
Shirer writes: "...beyond reasonable doubt it was the Nazis who planned the arson and carried it out for their own political ends."

Indeed, the more you study the Reichstag fire, its origins and uses, the more you see what a stunning parallel to it 9/11 is -- on the face of it, as well as in some of the intricacies.
BarrieZ in Toronto

from
http://www.oilempire.us/reichstag-fire.html

Good post and

the Nation seems to believe that there is suddenly and magically a "historic consensus" that now absolves the Nazis. They try to say in passing that since there was a scapegoat, the Nazis can't be directly pînned simply because they used the fire as a pretext.

I wonder if the Nation has ulterior motives?

The Nation Defends Hitler...

against those evil "conspiracy theorist".

Certainly not the side you would expect the country's (so-called) progressive publication of record to take.

Defending Hitler as a means of attacking the 9/11 Truth Movement. Even Orwell would be stunned!

the Nation(al Socialists)?

It's all starting to make sense!! :)

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

I assume the truth was fairly widely known among the elite?

Sounds like they tried a LIHOP defense:
"We didn't really do it. Some challenged person came in, without the means, and just happened to drop a match where we'd spilled gasoline on the floor." "We didn't stop him from entering the building."

I guess people have really been that stupid and manipulated for a long time!

So what is "The Nation" doing defending the Nazi's innocence in this? No other way to get to the predetermined conclusion they've [subconsciously] decided they must reach? I think they're probably dirtier than that.

i love this, this is PURE

i love this, this is PURE fear. when has CBS ever re-ran a column from The Nation magazine? has it ever been done? pure fear.

CBS registrtaion

HAs anyone tried to register at CBS? it keep saying I need a phone number, but there is no place to leave it?

Me neither...

There is no phone number area?

CBS registrtaion

Is this a conspiracy or what?

I even tried not linking from 911 Blogger, but it still didn't work..

Well...

The author did say - The government has prevaricated.
And still many Americans will not believe that means that they have been lied to, by their elected representatives.

Good Point!

Good Point!

One good thing about the

One good thing about the article...they didn't get to the "nutty" truther stuff until
later on in the article. I bet the average reader quites about 1/2 way through the
article, which means that they got some good truth links to pursue and didn't
see most of the hit job.

Was this intentional? I've seen many hit articles that go right from the get go
at attacking the truth movement. It is very true that opinion writers get THEIR
main points across in the start of an article, but leave their EDITORS sanctioned
opinions to the end. This allow them to weave in the truth to get beyond the
gatekeepers.

In any event, I believe that this article will do more GOOD then harm for the
Truth movement.

This article is great for

This article is great for use, when we edit out a few of the author's opinions and emphasis the stated facts....
Read this edited article - 90% of the original - taking out just a few unsupported, biased statements by
the author (which were probably the result of the editors)....

According to a July poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East. This is at once alarming and unsurprising. Alarming, because if tens of millions of Americans really believe their government was complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens, they seem remarkably sanguine about this fact. By and large, life continues as before, even though tens of millions of people apparently believe they are being governed by mass murderers. Unsurprising, because the government these Americans suspect of complicity in 9/11 has acquired a justified reputation for deception: weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping. What else are they hiding?

[…]

The Truth Movement's recent growth can be largely attributed to the Internet-distributed documentary "Loose Change." A low-budget film produced by two 20-somethings that purports to debunk the official story of 9/11, it's been viewed over the Internet millions of times. Complementing "Loose Change" are the more highbrow offerings of a handful of writers and scholars, many of whom are associated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Two of these academics, retired theologian David Ray Griffin and retired Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, have written books and articles that serve as the movement's canon. Videos of their lectures circulate among the burgeoning portions of the Internet devoted to the cause of the "truthers." A variety of groups have chapters across the country and organize conferences that draw hundreds. In the last election cycle, the website www.911truth.org even produced a questionnaire with pointed inquiries for candidates, just like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the Sierra Club. The Truth Movement's relationship to the truth may be tenuous, but that it is a movement is no longer in doubt.

Truth activists often maintain they are simply "raising questions," and as such tend to focus with dogged persistence on physical minutiae: the lampposts near the Pentagon that should have been knocked down by Flight 77, the altitude in Pennsylvania at which cellphones on Flight 93 should have stopped working, the temperature at which jet fuel burns and at which steel melts. They then use these perceived inconsistencies to argue that the central events of 9/11 — the plane hitting the Pentagon, the towers collapsing — were not what they appeared to be. So: The eyewitness accounts of those who heard explosions in the World Trade Center, combined with the facts that jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at 2,500, shows that the towers were brought down by controlled explosions from inside the buildings, not by the planes crashing into them.

If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.

To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism. But the example of the Reichstag fire itself is instructive. While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the U.S. government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist. That fact changes little about the Nazi regime, or its use of the fire for its own ends. It's true the Nazis were the chief beneficiaries of the fire, but that doesn't mean they started it, and the same goes for the Bush Administration and 9/11.

[…]

And yet no amount of debunking seems to work. The Internet empowers people with esoteric interests to spend all kinds of time pursuing their hobbies, and if the Truth Movement was the political equivalent of Lord of the Rings fan fiction or furries, there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention. But the public opinion trend lines are moving in the truthers' direction, even after the official 9/11 Commission report was supposed to settle the matter once and for all.

Of course, the ommission report was something of a whitewash — Bush would only be interviewed in the presence of Dick Cheney, the commission was denied access to other key witnesses, and just this year we learned of a meeting convened by George Tenet the summer before the attacks to warn Condoleezza Rice about al Qaeda's plotting, a meeting that was nowhere mentioned in the report.

So it's hard to blame people for thinking we're not getting the whole story. For six years, the government has prevaricated and the press has largely failed to point out this simple truth. Critics like The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann might lament the resurgence of the "paranoid style," but the seeds of paranoia have taken root partly because of the complete lack of appropriate skepticism by the establishment press, a complementary impulse to the paranoid style that might be called the "credulous style."

In the credulous style all political actors are acting with good intentions and in good faith. Mistakes are made, but never because of ulterior motives or undue influence from the various locii of corporate power. When people in power advocate strenuously for a position it is because they believe in it. When their advocacy leads to policies that create misery, it is due not to any evil intentions or greed or corruption, but rather simple human error. Ahmad Chalabi summed up this worldview perfectly. Faced with the utter absence of the WMD he and his cohorts had long touted in Iraq, he replied, "We are heroes in error."

For a long time the credulous style has dominated the establishment, but its hold intensified after 9/11. When the government speaks, particularly about the Enemy, it must be presumed to be telling the truth. From the reporting about Iraq's alleged WMD to the current spate of stories about how "dangerous" Iran is, time and again the press has reacted to official pronouncements about threats with a near total absence of skepticism. Each time the government announces the indictment of domestic terrorists allegedly plotting our demise, the press devotes itself to the story with obsessive relish, only to later note, on page A22 or in a casual aside, that the whole thing was bunk.

In August 2003, to cite just one example, the New York dailies breathlessly reported what one U.S. official called an "incredible triumph in the war against terrorism," the arrest of Hemant Lakhani, a supposed terrorist mastermind caught red-handed attempting to acquire a surface-to-air missile. Only later did the government admit that the "plot" consisted of an FBI informant begging Lakhani to find him a missile, while a Russian intelligence officer called up Lakhani and offered to sell him one.

Yet after nearly a dozen such instances, the establishment media continue to earnestly report each new alleged threat or indictment, secure in the belief that their proximity to policy-makers gets it closer to the truth. But proximity can obscure more than clarify. It's hard to imagine that the guy sitting next to you at the White House correspondents' dinner is plotting to, say, send the country into a disastrous and illegal war, or is spying on Americans in blatant defiance of federal statutes. Bob Woodward, the journalist with the most access to the Bush Administration, was just about the last one to realize that the White House is disingenuous and cynical, that it has manipulated the machinery of state for its narrow political ends.

Meanwhile, those who realized this was the White House's MO from the beginning have been labeled conspiracy theorists. During the 2004 campaign Howard Dean made the charge that the White House was manipulating the terror threat level and recycling old intelligence. The Bush campaign responded by dismissing Dean as a "bizarre conspiracy theorist." A year later, after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge retired, he admitted that Dean's charge was, indeed, the truth. The same accusation of conspiracy-mongering was routinely leveled at anyone who suggested that the war in Iraq was and is motivated by a desire for the United States to control the world's second-largest oil reserves.

For the Administration, "conspiracy" is a tremendously useful term, and can be applied even in the most seemingly bizarre conditions to declare an inquiry or criticism out of bounds. Responding to a question from NBC's Brian Williams as to whether he ever discusses official business with his father, Bush said such a suggestion was a "kind of conspiracy theory at its most rampant." The credulous style can brook no acknowledgment of unarticulated motives to our political actors, or consultations to which the public is not privy.

The public has been presented with two worldviews, one credulous, one paranoid, and both unsatisfactory. The more the former breaks apart, the greater the appeal of the latter. Conspiracy theories that claim to explain 9/11 are wrongheaded and a terrible waste of time, but the skeptical instinct is, on balance, salutary. It is right to suspect that the operations of government, the power elite and the military-industrial complex are often not what they seem; and proper to raise questions when the answers provided have been unconvincing. Given the untruths to which American citizens have been subjected these past six years, is it any surprise that a majority of them think the government's lying about what happened before and on 9/11?

Still, the persistent appeal of paranoid theories reflects a cynicism that the credulous media have failed to address, because they posit a world of good intentions and face-value pronouncements, one in which the suggestion that a government would mislead or abuse its citizens for its own gains or the gains of its benefactors is on its face absurd.

[…]

To avoid such a fate, the public must come to trust that the gatekeepers of public discourse share their skepticism about the agenda its government is pursuing. The antidote, ultimately, to the Truth Movement is a press that refuses to allow the government to continue to lie.

"The antidote, ultimately,

"The antidote, ultimately, to the Truth Movement is a press that refuses to allow the government to continue to lie."

I think this bit says it all: we wouldn't be here if MSM did it's sodding job.

"Bugger this; I want a better world."

Digg

It's nice to see many pro-9/11 Truth comments surviving in positive territory in the Digg comment section for this CBS article. I seem to remember reading the comments for a 9/11 article in the not so distant past where all of the 9/11 Truth comments were buried. Check it out:

http://www.digg.com/politics/90_Million_Americans_Believe_Government_Beh...

Many comments with 9/11 Truth in positive territory. Better yet, don't just check it out, add your own!

Reasons for 9/11

The question that CBS asked was a loaded question since it only gave one reason for the attacks. I did not post a "Comment" to the CBS response because I am not registered with CBS to respond. I think to register just to "Comment" on a loaded question would be counter productive to the end results.

The reason that I feel the question is a loaded question is because it does not leave room for alternatives other than "a pretext to war".

Frankly from what I have learned from my research is much more than that.
1- The Pentagon was undergoing renovation. I believe that the walls of the rings were reinforced which gave the building its reputation for strength. Did you ever try and start a new hole in a reinforced wall ? Let alone a few of them. Wouldn't it be easier to fire a missile through all of them with one shot ? It certainly would cut down on the man-hours spent on the renovation.
2 - The World Trade Center Complex was owned by the Port of Authority of New York and New Jersey (PA) except for the WTC 7 building itself. The land is owned by the PA. The PA is a joint government entity under the control of both Governors of NY & NJ. The cold short reason was that the costly "white elephant towers were cleared for a new complex for Mr. Silverstein. I am working on an essay about this subject.
3 - Shanksville Pa. could have been nothing more than a test of a new type of weapon not a plane crash and as Monty Python's Flying Circus used to say "And now for something completely different" to add to the confusion.
4 - WTC 7 collapse pure destruction of evidence. The bunker that was on the 23rd floor was used as the command center for the land clearance operations and other government agencies had offices and evidence for SEC investigations were also destroyed in the process.

So I think that a simple "pretext for war" does not suffice. Iraq wasn't illegally invaded until 2003. This shows that they didn't need any pretext for war.
It was a terrorist attack on the people of the United States by a rouge group of fascists seeking to impose their will on the American citizens and to destroy the Bill of Rights and Constitution of the United States of America.

Those cowardly little

Those cowardly little maggots closed the comments... lol

The same article was posted on Alternet anyway. It's set to break 1000 comments.