An Open Letter to Amy Goodman
It's been a while since I've written, and I see that you have done a few segments that draw attention to some of the problems that swirl around 9/11. You had a "debate" between the "Loose Change" crew and "Popular Mechanics", you brodcast Sen. Leahy's statement; "...why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?", you confirmed via journalist Marc Perelman that indeed, two of the cheering "movers" spotted on the Jersey shore on 9/11 were MOSSAD agents, and this past week you had Philip Shenon on the show regarding his new book, you helped circulate the news that the CIA tortured the main 9/11 suspects upon which the 9/11 Commission built its foundation, and today (2/7) you somewhat aggresively interviewed Philip Zelikow.
So it does seem like Democracy Now! is finally snapping out of a kind of trance. It does seem like there is a willingness to challenge the official 9/11 narrative. Perhaps it's time to make amends with a 9/11 skeptic who has done plenty+of+work+deconstructing+the+9/11+Commission, David Ray Griffin. You had him on your show on May 26, 2004, and you said to him;
"Can you name an expert you have relied on, for example on the issue of the world trade center towers going down, expert in structural engineering who has said it is impossible for the explanation to be the planes hit, and the fires caused the towers to go down?...
...Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down."
Well, there are at least 3 structural engineers now questioning the way that the towers came down, and a whole bunch of other engineers and architects over at Architects+&+Engineers+for+9/11+Truth.
It's time for the "debate" format to hit the skids, Amy. It's time to let 9/11 skeptics air their grievances on your program without an establishment shill shouting them down or insulting them, when it's clear that an earnest and balanced debate is not likely to happen on a live-broadcast news digest anyhow. (By the way, Griffin beat the tar out of the Popular Mechanics book last year, I highly recommend his book, "Debunking+9/11+Debunking".)
Bring on David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and let them have their say. Follow up with a contrary episode if you must, but it has to be clear to you by now that the Official Conspiracy Theory has some serious problems;
1) The official narrative of how 9/11 was planned is based on the torture-derived "confessions" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and other alleged terrorists.
2) To date, no video tape has surfaced showing a single 9/11 hijacker getting onto a single hijacked plane. Airports are crawling with video cameras, surely there is one video, with a verifiable time stamp on it?
3) Contrary to the 9/11 Commission, studies by Allen M. Poteshman of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Paul Zarembka of SUNY-Buffalo, conclude that there is evidence of insider trading on AmericanAirlines and United Airlines in the period leading up to 9/11.
4) For rhetorical purposes only, let's say that "Al Qaeda" performed as specified by the 9/11 Commission, (even though, as early as October, 2001, serious analysts of military theory, like Stan Goff, were saying that, "The So-Called Evidence Is a Farce"). If that's so, why are there so many blatant connections between western intelligence and "Al Qaeda"? Connections like Ali Mohamed, for instance, or the Clinton administration's support of the KLA througout the 1990's, or the continued alleged links between CIA and Abu Sayyaf? It seems based on the research of Michel Chossudovsky of Canada, and Nafeez Ahmed of Britain, that if indeed, "Al Qaeda" did pull off 9/11, it did it as a proxy force, or patsy force at best. Doesn't that tweak your conscience just slightly? If "Al Qaeda" is a patsy army, then over One+Million dead Iraqi citizens have died for nothing, because the invasion of Iraq was never going to happen without a "Catastrophic Event", like 9/11, that the Neocons were pining for.
5) The narratives of what happened to US air defenses on 9/11, as supplied by official spokesmen, have been a+series+of+contradictions, only compounded in 2006 by the release of additional tapes.
There are lots of problems.
Amy, get on the right side of history, and help, not hinder, the many voices that decry the 9/11 Commission, and all of the evil works that have followed in the wake of 9/11.