9/11: Here it comes again

Source: http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2007/08/911-here-it-com.html

Thursday, August 30, 2007

9/11: Here it comes again

The last time I checked my stack of screeners, I did not see a single television special being produced to observe the sixth anniversary of the attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

That has not stopped another group of highly creative people from generating their own commemoration of the events of 9/11. I refer, of course, to conspiracy theorists.

This morning I found an email in my inbox from one Guy Smoot, who identified himself as a graduate student in classics at Rutgers University, arguing that 9/11 "was an inside job." I think it was the classics part that got me — that was my major in college, too, and I've always thought it helped develop my critical-thinking skills, which seem to be missing, or underutilized, among the 9/11 conspiracy crowd.

After establishing through a web search that Mr. Smoot probably was who he claimed to be, I read his letter more carefully and wrote a response.

Mr. Smoot writes:


I am a graduate student at Rutgers University in the Classics. I am writing to urge you to give a fair and balanced coverage of the tragic events of 9/11.


I am a graduate student at Rutgers University in the Classics. I am writing to urge you to give a fair and balanced cove

rage of the tragic events of 9/11.

I urge you to refrain from the one-sided and misleading slur "conspiracy theory", as applied to views that take exception to the Bush administration"s claims about what happened on 9/11. If, as the Webster-Merriam dictionary says, a conspiracy is "a combination of persons banded secretly together and resolved to accomplish an evil or unlawful end", then the claim according to which Osama bin Laden and 19 hijackers attacked us on 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory. I repeat: the official story is a conspiracy theory. You should either refrain altogether from the phrase, or use it for both parties.

I urge you not to follow in the foot steps of the completely biased and propagandistic "documentary" that was recently aired on the History Channel. In it, Popular Mechanics" David Coburn and James Meigs were hailed as "experts", systematically given the final word and allowed to get away with such egregious lies as the claim that it was "possible" to make cell phone calls below 40000 feet. By possible, they failed to specify that for three successful phone calls to be made at half that elevation, i.e. 20000 feet, there is less than one chance in a million (see p 295 of the following book).

Having dispassionately read what I"ve read, i.e. both sides of the story"the 9/11 Commission Report, The NIST report, Debunking 9/11 as well as reports by 9/11 Truth researchers"the shocking conclusion I've reached is that the theory with the most amount of verifiable evidence is that of an inside job.

I urge you to read the most comprehensive and up-to-date work on the subject:

Debunking 9/11 Debunking
By David Ray Griffin

Every American citizen and every intelligent person should read it.

Thank you for your time.

And I replied:

Hi Guy. With all of your important graduate work going on, I can't help but wonder why you are so interested in 9/11 that you take time to email journalists about it.

As a journalist interested in history (also a classics major, Northwestern 1987), I simply have to go with the big story. Not the official story, which pretty much begins and ends on 9/11, but the big story that begins with Qutb and persecution of radical Muslims in the 1950s. That's the story that leads to OBL and Zawahiri, two psychopaths whose obsession, commitment and instincts led to this dramatic and horrible act. Lawrence Wright spent five years of his life documenting those guys and I find The Looming Tower a convincing account of al Qaeda and how it was able to go about its work.

So unless you convince me that the men of al Qaeda were completely unlikely perpetrators of the acts of 9/11 — which means discrediting 50 years of data establishing their motives and means — your fixation on whether people can make cell phone calls in the air or not isn't just laughable, it's pointless.

Posted by Aaron Barnhart on Thursday, August 30, 2007 at 07:41 AM in TV Barn | Permalink

What a blithering idiot this alleged

"journalist" is, clearly has no desire what so ever to accept any resemblance of the truth.
His mind is made up, the end.
He is part of that 30% of the American public that will flatly refuse to accept any and all evidence no matter what the source or how irrefutable it is.

The thing to do...

... is to direct him here:

It's an article by Lawrence Wright, an author he says he respects. It's called "The Agent: Did the CIA stop an FBI detective from preventing 9/11?"* While it might not be NPH, it is a decent introduction to one of the key issues - the CIA's protection of the hijackers.

The next step is here:
It's a book entitled "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam" by Robert Dreyfuss. It's a more realistic look at the origins of militant Islam and shows how it has always been manipulated by the west, dating back much further than Qutb.

Slightly off topic: the reason they always start with Qutb is because he's about the only Islamic fundamentalist who very probably did not work with the west (rejected an approach probably on the CIA's behalf). Most of the others did.

* The answer is yes, by the way.

yes, and why would there not

yes, and why would there not be even a single special on 9/11? why no look at 9/11 almost ever from the MSM? the hack journalist doesnt ask why. he knows why. a critical look destroys the myth. sure Mr. journalist, the big bad scary muslims could never be used as cover or patsies right? we never armed, funded and helped to create a terrorist movement in Afghanistan right? the leadership of said group wasnt connected to the CIA despite the CIA being very much present in Afghanistan at this time right? those kinds of things have never happened throughout history right Mr. journalist..........

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Dear Mr. Journalist......

I would suggest that you contact Northwestern University,and request a full refund. The one thing that is laughable is your critical thinking skills.

I think Mr. "Journalist"

I think Mr. "Journalist" fails to comprehend the notion that these scary horrible Arabs (if they in fact were involved in some way ) did and do NOT act autonomously. They are subsidized and puppeteered by an elite global body bent on world domination. That's the aweful truth. I suppose the best way to characterize the event of 9/11 is to say that it was an inside AND outside job. Think about it: the U.S. government (or the rogue factions in charge now) are not beholden to our national sovernty. They are hell-bent on establishing a world-wide dictatorial...society (for lack of a better way to express it) and have ties to foreign entities. So yes, American insiders WERE involved in the planning of 9/11, but I'm quite sure they had outside assistance from the rest of the global elite along with its pathetic group of sub-contracting zombies and patsies.

9/11 was a Global-Elite operation. An inside/outside job. Hopefully someone will come up with a better expression than "9/11 was an inside operation". It was more than that.

I suggest the

esteemed 'journalist' schooled in 'critical-thinking' read (instead of Lawrence Wright), Michel Chossudovsky and Peter Dale Scott.

Mr. Aaron Barnhart is not particularly persuasive and as usual, resorts to ad hominem (in his comments below his article). It is also clear that he has very little grasp of that 50 year history to which he refers. People like Mr. Barnhart are simply tiring.