American Thinker says 9/11 skepticism "extremely dangerous"

Cross posted on's Michael Lopez-Calderon thinks that people who don't buy the government's line about 9/11 are "extremely dangerous" because they might "undermine our democratic nation's war against the theocratic forces of radical, Jihadi-driven Islam".


And here I was thinking I was being patriotic trying to expose the bald-faced lies and brazen evasions that have constituted the "official story" of 9/11 up to this point. After all, if the Bush administration and/or its cronies DID perpetrate or facilitate the crimes of that day, the central justification for the ongoing war(s) against our officially designated enemies would be undermined indeed.

But, that must surely be because I find comfort in conspiracy theories. As Mr. Lopez-Calderon put it, "Conspiracy theories offer explanatory models of complex events to large audiences of the unsophisticated and under-educated."

Ouch again...

The weak "attack the messenger as delusional but avoid directly criticizing any of their specific claims" methodology used by his article is all too familiar, but Lopez-Calderon expands upon this with a sinister twist. The main thrust of this twist is that 9/11 skeptics are a dangerous pathogen in the American body politic, infecting otherwise warlike and patriotic citizens, particularly the young, with a paralytic cynicism that weakens their resolve to lash out with sufficient ruthlessness at those irredeemable A-rabs who just can't wait to kill us. Seems we just don't realize how much being force-fed Lee Greenberg can fill those boys with blood-lust. (Blowback from cultural imperialism indeed...)

This, it seems, is the real question at hand.

Should these petit-Benedict-Arnolds still be allowed to roam freely and brazenly challenge (on the scandalously unregulated internet) our great and noble nation's declared world-view?? Perhaps they should all be rounded up and held incommunicado in internment camps until the threat from "radical, Jihadi-driven Islam" has safely passed. That should only be a couple of months, right? Seems like the only sure strategy to keep them from doing things that "may lead more Americans, particularly the young, to withdraw their allegiance to their country."

Sounds like a national freaking emergency to me, neh?

And about that intarweb thing...

Another culprit of course is the unregulated, often unaccountable Internet-blogosphere, where virtually unfettered free speech has produced a downside, namely, an opening for every conceivable crackpot writer. In the past, such writers and their theories often were relegated to coffeehouses, salons, and obscure, dilapidated radical bookstores commonly found in college towns and or near major university campuses. They were a fringe relegated to relative obscurity. Today, thanks to the Internet's incredible freedom as well as reach, no toiler is condemned to obscurity but on the contrary, with some talent, hard work, and catchy writing, he can reach audiences that may range in the millions. (links added)

Oh God I could only hope...

I've been getting so tired of those musty radical bookstores anyway. And millions you say... Sheesh... That'd be nice...

Used to be in the old days I'd spend all night spread out at the local Kinkos, pasting together the carefully typed-out articles from my ragged gaggle of scribes. Now it's just Type, Post, and watch the hit-counter spin like it's a slot machine in Atlantic City. To think I used to spend all my weekends dropping off copies at the local coffeehouses and bookstores...

But I digress...

In addition to Michael's denouncement of 9/11 skeptics as essentially traitors scheming to bare America's belly to the inevitable Scimitar of theological conquest, he links such scholars with Holocaust Deniers and Illuminati fans. He summarily dismisses ALL research, conclusions, and data that would suggest that A) the government's case is fatally flawed, and B) that many 9/11 skeptics have meticulously researched and vetted data and conclusions. He provides links to sites that support his claims, like this one, but never gives links to any of the 9/11 Truth web sites that he is supposedly criticizing.

Try digging a little deeper, Mike. You obviously don't have any problem with America's actions or agenda in the world so go ahead. It won't put you at risk of "cynicism", right? Watch a couple of David Ray Griffin videos and systematically debunk his points. Read Jim Hoffman's analysis on his WTC7 site. Show me exactly how their arguments are flawed.

I dare you.

I don't think you've actually got the gravitas to try.

A genuine critique of their points might be a bit much to ask.

Much easier to simply dismiss something out of hand and trash fellow columnists, no?

We shall see I guess...


What a DICK!



Just trying to express my level of education.

Think it expressed my level of disdain. I thought I was being nice.

There are more choice words I'd love to use on people who choose to write stories of this calibur.

Anyone notice that this great American thinker noted that we "in his great mind" are in a war with Islam. Starting to think America deserves these people.

You think that if the government actually did good things for the world that they would need all these Orwellian measures so desperately?

There was also an article in

There was also an article in American Thinker a few months ago by an author named Dunn. Dr. James Fetzer has several articles posted at refuting that article.

The title of the magazine strikes me as anything other than an "American Thinker."

I am a conservative 9-11 truther, but quite a few liberal 9-11 truthers are on board with 9-11 truth now too, though far fewer than the conservative numbers.

While I very much like good solid arguments against assertions of writers and magazines that debunk 9-11 skepticism in a very illogical way, the America Thinker writers belong to the “bad right.” They think the president and “America” can do no wrong. They refuse to correctly identify America’s true enemies, but rather fully buy in to the faked up enemies continually being marketed on the American populace, that is, the best enemies money can buy.

However, I do not want to become associated with those who think all Muslims and Islamic countries in the middle east can do no wrong. I do not want the ordinary poor people of Israel to be hated and lumped in with their corrupt "leaders", and I do not want the ordinary people of any country to be labeled "Zionists" and evil. While I abhor the Afghanistan and Iraq unjust wars started by the U.S.A., I do not theoretically think all war is evil. I have been taught that there is such a thing as a just war, though I see very few examples of just wars in world history. While I hate the weapons of modern warfare (nukes and scalar and biological), I believe a well armed nation is one way to keep a nation strong from attackers. While I hate crooked big business (mostly corporations), there have been some honorable corporations that have been loyal to the U.S.A. and have not turned internationalist and globalist, but have tried to keep their companies "America first" in operation. While I believe in true Constitutional government for the USA and believe that an indispensable part of that means having strong US borders and sovereignty, I do not sympathize with radical leftists who claim the Mexican American war was just another imperialist contrived operation of bad American elites and military so America's imperialist thugs could steal Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California away from its rightful owners.. Batista was a crooked man, but Communist thug Castro was far far worse for the people of Cuba, and American elites pushed Batista out and put Castro in.

In other words, many on the left continually paint the picture that the United States of America is all bad and has been all bad all the time. They tout the wonderful peace and love for all people that can be had by the United Nations and a strong International Criminal Court. America is bad now and it has been gradually taken over by the elite one worlder billionaires who founded it.

But America's founding principles and ideals still make this the greatest nation for freedom for people that ever existed on this earth. So I share a strong desire for 9-11 truth with the leftists in the movement, I do not share the leftists solutions. The far right and the not so far left all want a one world government. The left thinks America is bad and that the right is way off base in their wanting small federal government and states rights and enforced US borders and the rule of law is not the ultimate answer at all to those evildoers who perpetrate heinous atrocities such as 9-11. The left sees one world peace and love strong world government is the only way to keep the corporatists and elites in line.

There is such a thing as radical Islam. Yes, Islam has hundreds years of history of warring and raping and pillaging in the world. There radical ways did not start with the USA working hard in the last few years to radicalize them even more. We bought hundeds of millions of dollars of textbooks so Islamic children in the Middle East could learn to commit terrorist acts and want to die for Allah. The USA is bad now, but for longer than any country in the world, we were good and that is when we were great. I want 9-11 truth for the purpose of saving the America that was good and being a sovereign nation of people who love freedom and know that eternal vigilance is the price of that freedom. Seeking 9-11 truth is a big part of my personal eternal vigilance.

I believe the rewriting of history by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and others is just as bad as the far right hateful totalitarian ideas of people like David Horowitz and the neocons.

So the ultimate goal of 9-11 truthers for leftists and the ultimate goal wished by the right for 9-11 truth differ very very starkly. Night and day. That is why it is so difficult to achieve unity within the 9-11 truth movement. Our end-game goals really show through in everything we do or say even though we do not label ourselves as "left" or "right".

What is so weird is that a person from the true left really is not much different from a person from the true right. And a person from the radical left and a person from the radical right are very much alike too in their world government goal. It is just that the left thinks world government offers peace and love and freedom and the right knows that one world government, by its very centrality and be-all, end-all nature, is bad because it will be feudalism under the elites who only want to kill people off and use most of the rest to slave for them.

As for good strong logical argumentation, I see that it often ends up in harsh words and polemics, even when the debate is between very smart logical people. I think everyone should listen to the show of Dr. James Fetzer (left) with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (the right) on the NonRandom thoughs archives of about two months ago. After that discussion, the true left and the true right do not really seem that far apart at all. Both sides want a sovereign USA and are loyal to that. Both sides know how bad a one world government will be.

I know that this writing of mine is disorganized but I think it highlights the reason the 9-11 truth movement could be undermined from within. On top of the different goals of our leftist and rightits members, there are always government disinfo people who infiltrate and sabotage from within.

Blessings from Dachsie in Austin.

There is a lot one could take issue with... your post (as well as more than a little I concur with), but I have too much catching up to do on this site to go into all of it....

I will say however, that, IMO, shouldn't lump Howard Zinn in with Gnome Chumsky, especially on a 9/11 Truth site. The estimable Professor Zinn has endorsed David Ray Griffin's books, and expressed grave doubts about the OV on Jack Blood's radio show recently.

Also, Zinn's history of America provides an invaluable counterweight to the officially-sanctioned, sanitized, war-glorifying, imperialistic history we are all brainwashed with in school, in this country.


Ronald Weick the professional government apologist who hosted the recent Loose Change debate has written for this rag before. surprise surprise.

Isn't he the same guy who had Les Jameson on....

....awhile back and bent over backward to shill the OV? Looks like the guy....

probably is. he goes out of

probably is. he goes out of his way to shill for other things as well. i noticed during the break that he was going on and on about basically how stupid Mark Crispin Miller is for documenting, quite soundly in my opinion, that the election was likely stolen. he took a shot at Robert Kennedy Jr. as well. i think he even voiced his support for the official story regarding Oklahoma City. the guy can see no evil unless its external.

holy crap, i didnt even

holy crap, i didnt even realize it was the same guy until you mentioned that. i only went to conspiracysmasher for maybe about a week and that was all i could stomach. i do remember Ron Wieck now that you mention it though and you are absolutely right, he had nothing then and he still has nothing. where does this show of his even air? any idea how many people watch this clown? so funny, he acts so authoritative and "above it all" on his show only to troll on a website supporting a fairy tale. obviously i understand the motivation behind trying to expose 9/11, but what on earth could the motviation be to try and help the government sell its fairy tale?(do they need your help shills?) a question for all shills, yet none of them can answer it. it must be fear.

Same strategy

He used the same strategy with the Loose Change guys as with Jamieson -- and fairly successfully...