Prof. Michael Keefer of the Univ. of Guelph Replies to Alexander Cockburn (Counterpunch article), in Journal of 911 Studies

Professor Michael Keefer takes on Alexander Cockburn in "Into the Ring with Counterpunch on 9/11:
How Alexander Cockburn, Otherwise So Bright, Blanks Out on 9/11 Evidence."

Michael Keefer is Professor of English at the University of Guelph (Ontario, Canada) and Contributing Editor to the Centre for Research on Globalization. His recent publications include essays on textual critical theory and practice, on electoral fraud in the United States and Haiti, on false-flag terrorism in Iraq, and on U.S. plans for a nuclear attack on Iran. His Letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies can be read here:

Counter Punched!

Very nice.

Bill Polonsky
"The evidence is there no matter how much you don't want it to be."

Great Piece, Too Bad I could not give it more than 10!!

Still, the same arguments that professor Keefer makes against counterpunch and its contributors can be made against many in the camp he is defending.

I say this based on first hand experience.

I rushed to publish my first article"Bush and Blair, if the moon could talk, what would it say?". That article made its way very quickly onto the Global Research website and so did many of the following articles I wrote; some were ever published while in draft form and without my knowledge; I really have no problem, just surprising.

On the other hand, I knew that "Bush and Blair, if the moon..." needed more work and the tape needed technical analysis. I asked Michel Chossudovski of global research for help connect me to technical guys where he lectures. I was told in return that the piece was fine and that it did not need more work.

I wanted the piece to be as close to evidence in a court of law as possible; so the work went on.

I had to rely on less sophisticated analysis, still effective, in order to complete the work. The result was much stronger, more convincing, and with an accurate and complete timeline than the original article Global Research considered adequate.

Global Research did not publish the more complete and more accurate analysis. Why? Is it because Chossudovski published a book with accounts of bin Laden that are contradicted by the evidence I uncovered.

The only website that published the article was Counterpunch, "Osama's Confession, Osama's Reprieve". In a way that gave me a black eye with the 9/11 truth movement, but that piece on its own, should have bridged the divide between counterpunch and the movement; at least in the mind of Alexander Cockburn.

I was very grateful that Counterpunch published the piece and credit them for giving me a stronger voice but that does not mean I did not voice my concern and criticism by email or through phone calls when I read those articles about the 9/11 truth movement.

I think Professor Keefer dealt fairly with Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey StClaire, but he should also look into the practices of the those of high integrity that he references. The same call for inclusiveness and focus on the ulitmate goals that all parties agree on should go to those he is defending.

In peace,
Maher Osseiran

It is unfortunate that the

It is unfortunate that the good professor conflates two very controversial topics, namely Global Warming and Peak Oil, with the subject of 9/11 Research.

It is to my mind also a bit mischeivous. There are many here among us who dispute the mainstream version of both, while at the same time strongly supporting the 9/11 truth arguments.

The professor needs to understand that there is genuine controversy over Peak Oil and Global Warming, and he should note that the mainstream media has been deluging us with hysterical propaganda about global warming for many years now - this alone should give him reason to pause and reflect. Why do all the mainstream media so uncritically parrot the global warming dogma while at the same time ignoring 9/11 truth? What does this suggest about the real agenda behind the global warming theory - is it science or politcs?

I only bring this up because the Professor chose to make these other controversies central to his paper. He could have easily avoided bringing up these two very divisive topics.

Curiouser and Curiouser
Editor -

please always add: "human

please always add: "human made" global warming.
Besides, the warming that seems to be occuring at the moment is probably not more than a regular swing of the temeratur curve, followed by a decline of temperature

Peak Oil, 911 and Climate Change

Hi 911oz from a fellow 911oz'er.

If like me and I guess the good professor you've been looking at these problems as they've gathered pace over especially the last half decade it's very difficult to discount any one of them. They are all backed by solid scientific evidence put forward by scientists in good faith and as with all science they offer only possibilities based on empirical data and best fit theories ... none of them are matters of belief but rather of possible scenarios.

The scenario that troubles me the most is that the peak of global oil extraction may well be upon us based on the modeling done by independent, retired and academic geologists who worked diligently to warn people and governments for years and were subjected to much the same ridicule and disinfo as the 911 scholars until the oil problem became so self evident the MSM has had to in part start to acknowledge it, especially since late 2005 when global oil production more or less stopped growing. If it is actually the case that industrial modernity has reached the plateau of global peak oil then the underlying motivation for:

1. The blatant mass murders of 911
2 .The completely insane criminality of the invasion of the Middle East and imminent threat of nuclear war
3. The destructive credit bubble driving our hyperinflating consumption economies and middle classes into a brick wall as if there is no tomorrow
4. The national emergency modernization programs in China and elsewhere with no regard to the possibility of anthropogenic global warming
5. The next 911 and collapse of the US social and political order into a truly fascist police state
6. WW3 - the real one
7. The complete collapse of globalization and any possibility of a sane internationalist approach to the threat of runaway global warming

is not something that is under any of the various global elites' control. In this scenario the so called "Illuminati" aren't masters of their own or our destinies, they're just rats in a Skinner Box madly pushing levers to avoid punishment and gain rewards, constrained and driven by the historical momentum of industrial modernity that was unleashed 200 yrs ago based on non-finite exponential growth in all human spheres. If modernity is a technological juggernaut on a collision course with our planetary limits then the context for 911 becomes even more immediate and extreme. 911 becomes a symptom of a systemically corrupted global civilization faced with a generational revolution in our modern way of life without historical precedent.

As far as I've seen all the non-scientific, popular "debunking" and controversy over peak oil and anthropogenic climate change are no different from those we face with the 911 deniers. I've no interest in debating the theories here though, but just like 911 Truth if you look into the problems and devote the same level of research to each you may reach the same conclusions as the good professor. Or not.

the gatekeeper phenomenon

I have a simplistic question to pose that may help to explain what is happening with Counterpunch and other publications that serve as gatekeeper to the truth. Could it be that this publications and its team of authors are first and foremost supporters of the Israeli agenda? Since I'm not a subscriber or regular reader of Counterpunch, I have to also wonder if they provide balanced coverage of ongoing land appropriation, suppression, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people in its pages? I keep wondering whether the gatekeeper phenomenon is due to the need to protect, obscure, and otherwise ignore the deep and dubious role of Israel in US affairs.

Counterpunch is said to be anti-Likud

I had a quick look and found this by co-editor Jeffery St. Clair:

It's about the USS Liberty.

I also came across this:

It's called "Israel's State Terrorism".

Or this:

"What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks?"

So I doubt it's pro-Likud.

Indeed, consistently anti-Zionist

As I mentioned in another thread, affinity for the state of Israel certainly does not describe Counterpunch, nor another website that disses 9/11 truth, The explanation for 9/11 gatekeeping in these cases must lie elsewhere.

By the way, while the article referenced in this post is a good one, have we all forgotten that it actually came out in the fall of '06? Or have I entered some sort of time warp?

well said!


I find this a very plausible analysis of the behavior of Cockburn et al. Have they been notified about it?

if he has im pretty sure

if he has im pretty sure he'll just ignore it. thats what his type tend to do. i personally asked Chomsky if he read Zwicker's chapter on him, and though he admitted to being asked this question a lot and was told about it from many people he still hasnt heard a good reason why he should read it. typical arrogance, i expect Cockburn to ignore the hell out of this as well.

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

This is the typical,

This is the typical, nose-in-the-air Chomsky m.o., otherwise known as "invincible ignorance." If he claims not to have read it, he doesn't have to address the very real issues Barrie raises. (I don't believe that he hasn't been well-apprised of the content of that chapter, however. The guy has minions.)

Likewise, his statement that unless he spent years studying engineering he would lack the necessary expertise to evaluate the building collapses absolves him of responsibility for standard critical thinking. When all else fails, assume an authoritarian stance and invoke the religion of credentials -- keep setting the bar higher and hope people drop out of the discussion.

He uses the same tactics as the Faux debunkers, although he wraps it in different rhetoric.

FYI: Cockburn has also

FYI: Cockburn has also written scathing screeds about uncovered high-level pedophile/ pornography rings. From the book "Programmed to Kill: The Politics of Serial Murder" by Dave McGowan, which uses only mainstream media accounts:

"The investigation came about as a result of a raid on the Ft. Worth, Texas home of Thomas and Janice Reedy, who had been operating a business called Landslide Productions, which offered child pornography for sale over the Internet. The Reedy's website, according to the Independent, functioned as a portal to "more than 5,700 websites with names such as Child Rape and Cyber Lolita." The Reedys had made millions of dollars from their child porn business, which "employed more than a dozen staff, including a customer service representative and a receptionist." This financial empire was built with "money raised from the torture, rape and sexual abuse of children as young as two."

"The raid on the Reedy's home, conducted in September 1999, unexpectedly yielded a database of the names and addresses of a reported 75,000 subscribers around the world. According to a report carried in February 2002 by TechTV, "more than 35,000 [of those] individual subscribers [were] in the United States." Nevertheless, only 100 arrests had been made at that time of the report - a number that remained unchanged in the months after the initial arrests. By early 2003, the story had dropped out of sight with little indication that there would be any further arrests, despite Chief Postal Inspector Kenneth Weaver's earlier insistence that the initial arrests were just "the tip of the iceberg."

"More than 7,000 subscribers to the site were British citizens. Their names, addresses and credit card information were provided by the FBI to British authorities, who launched an investigation paralleling Operation Avalanche that was dubbed Operation Ore. As in America, only a few of the known offenders have thus far been arrested. Included among those questioned by police have been television personality Matthew Kelly and legendary guitarist Pete Townshend.

"Rushing to Townshend's defense was The Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn, who earlier played a prominent role in denouncing the McMartin prosecutions. In a posting on his Counterpunch website from February 2003, Cockburn grossly misrepresented the nature of the charges against Townshend. He charged that, according to the Supreme Court, "'porn' encompass[es] even clothed images of children if they are construed as arousing. 'Child' means anyone under 18." Cockburn labeled Townshend's arrest "absurd," and claimed that if you "have a photo of a kid in a bath on your hard drive, and the prosecutor says you were looking at it with lust in your heart, [then] that is tantamount to sexually molesting an actual kid in an actual bath."

"Cockburn was clearly trying to convey the impression that Townshend and others are the innocent victims of overzealous prosecutors. It will be recalled, however, that the images that the Landslide website was offering to Townshend and other subscribers were images of "the torture, rape and sexual abuse of children as young as two." Those are not the types of images that would easily be mistaken for innocent pictures of a child taking a bath.

"Also included among the 7,272 suspects in the United Kingdom, according to the Observer, were "hundreds of child welfare professionals, including police officers, care workers and teachers," all of whom were "identified as 'extremely high-risk' paedophiles." Particularly well represented on the list were law enforcement personnel: "Investigators now believe as many as 90 police officers have so far been identified from an initial trawl of 200 of the British names found in the U.S. Many of the other suspects work in other sensitive professions, often linked to the criminal justice system."

This isn't the first protection racket in which he's participated. Bastard.

Empirical Evidence

What strikes me with the defenders of the official yarn - is that they only seem to pay cursory attention to the video evidence and never treat it as a source of data.
In Garcia's piece for example he predicts at 3m the falling block's velocity would fall by 0.5 m/s. What he doesn't do is take a measurement to check his hypothesis. If you do take a measurement from the video, you see that at 3m the block is accelerating at 98% freefall and its velocity increases by 0.5m/s. That should tell him his model/hypothesis is at least flawed.