CommonDreams / Common Blunders: Attacking the 9/11 Dissenters

John Doraemi

"... and Popular Mechanics’ issue on the subject is a good place to start."
-Singer turned pundit, David Rovics/

CommonDreams is a highly visited "progressive" news site. The focus there is mainly on reprinting corporate-produced pieces that somehow share the biases of the editors. They do also however print editorials from freelance writers, and when the issue of the 9/11 cover up is breached, only one side is permitted to weigh in. And that side is permitted to outright attack and to libel the other side, the 'other' side being the amorphous "9/11 Truth Movement."

No response in kind is permitted; it doesn't matter the content, nor the quality of the evidence. This policy has rightly earned CommonDreams the reputation of "gatekeepers" among disgruntled readers.

I call out CommonDreams because they are representative of a bunch of "liberal" or "progressive" websites and blogs, and so these patterns are recurring (for 7 years now).

A recent letter published there from David Rovics, an independent musician, will make my case unequivically. From its title onward, this hit piece is one big straw man: The Truth About the 9/11 ‘Truth Movement’.

By conveniently boxing a movement of tens of millions of people under a label, Rovics does what corporate media shills have done ad nauseum: guilt by association.

Rovics' peeve is that a heckler at his anti-war singing performance was rude and belligerent. The poor behavior consisted of shouting from, "a red-faced white man with an ominous hand-written sign reading, '9/11 was a lie.'” Rovics doesn't go into any detail upon what preceded this man's shouting fit (something Rovics may have said on the p.a. system?), but Rovics does take it upon himself to smear everyone seeking the truth of 9/11 because of a few such individuals.

If the same tactic -- the same standard -- is employed against the "anti-war movement," because of the negative behavior of a few individuals... perhaps Rovics could understand his error. Perhaps not.

So, Rovics feels attacked by the "9/11 Truth Movement," and so he feels justified in attacking back, and CommonDreams feels justified in printing his attack. Why? I don't know.

You see, unmentioned, was the reality that 9/11 really was a lie. Even the two nominal heads of the 9/11 Commission, Kean and Hamilton -- who moved mountains to contain the sham investigation studiously avoiding the numerous pertinent questions -- these two have complained publically about being lied to by military leaders and of having requested documents and evidence withheld. A large portion of their report was, of course, based on testimony produced via torture (Note: David Rovics himself would probably admit to blowing up the World Trade Center if tortured sufficiently into doing so).

So many lies flowed forth in the wake of 9/11, that it is inconceivable that those telling them should be presumed innocent, when these attacks happened on their watch, with their foreknowledge, and with the cover story that "no one" ever considered such attack scenarios before. A lie. A big lie. I won't even bother enumerating the political and monetary gains, the "opportunities" bestowed on the Bushites as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

The Bush administration was explicitly warned of just such attacks just a month and a half before 9/11 in Genoa Italy at the G-8 summit, and they were literally moved out of their high-rise hotel for precisely that reason.

The scope, magnitude, and complicity of specific US government individuals in the crimes of 9/11 has been somewhat covered up (with some help from "progressive" outlets like CommonDreams et. al., who stoop to demonizing dissent on the issue, rather than investigating further). But clearly the focus should be on the cover up by the US government, and not on the behavior of a few random persons at peace protests. The cognitive dissonance that allows such grotesque official lies to stand while turning the "two minutes of hate" (Orwell) toward 9/11 dissenters is both profound and damaging to the nation.

Rovics' Case

Take it from the singer:

" will find that most of [9/11 dissent websites and articles] are propaganda pieces and most of the "experts" are not experts in relevant fields."

I'll give him the first point, being unwilling to tally up and categorize where "propaganda" begins and valid studied opinion ends. But, see we're just talking numbers now, as in what constitutes "most." The validity of specific evidence and arguments isn't even challenged, merely lumped in with a tide of "propaganda pieces" which are to be dismissed a priori.

The second quibble is not a valid complaint. There are "experts," credentialed professionals in the fields joining related 9/11 Truth groups all the time. Many have spoken out over the years, at risk of their own careers in this jingoistic atmosphere of hostility and knee-jerkism.

It's not exactly career-enhancing to go up against the federal government when numerous job prospects over one's career will involve federal money and oversight.

UL Laboratories manager Kevin Ryan was fired for simply writing a letter to the head of the NIST investigation in an effort to clarify his company's role in certifying the structural steel in the World Trade Center. Ryan, who knows a bit more about these issues than David Rovics, explains the situation:

"The extensive paperwork necessary to complete civil engineering projects is obtained by working closely with, and staying on good terms with, local and national authorities. That fact may not be enough to ensure vocal support for the official story of “global collapse”, but it has been enough to keep most structural engineers from publicly opposing the intransigent government stance on the WTC events." -Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC “Experts” by Kevin Ryan

Rovics tells us:

"...look beyond this mass of misinformation for real experts, you will easily find pilots who can discount the claims of the Truthers that maneuvering the planes into the towers was a particularly challenging thing for people with only a little flight training to pull off."

Rovics takes to cherry picking a handful of easily challenged claims, something he's several years behind the curve in doing. Again, the focus is not on whether the government has proven or not proven what happened, such as if the hijackings were real or fabricated. All that matters to Rovics/CommonDreams is if they can appear to be authoritative by knocking down an easily challenged hypothesis.


"You will easily find mechanical engineers familiar with the structural flaws in the design of the WTC that allowed it to collapse in the first place, and physicists who can explain why such large buildings would appear to be imploding as if in a controlled demolition, or why people on the scene would have thought they were hearing explosions, etc."

There are some debateable issues. What isn't debateable is that we need to know the truth.

If Rovics had studied this as he presents himself as having done, he would know that the crucial steel evidence was illegally destroyed by FEMA immediately after the disaster, and shipped off to Asia for meltdown. There is no justification for destroying the crucial forensic evidence of the World Trade Center steel, except to cover up what happened there.

NIST has admitted that they only have "1 percent" of the steel "core columns" from the fire affected areas (or so they claim in their response letter, section "E"). Not even NIST will attempt to "...extrapolate from such a small sample size...."

Rovics would rather find "experts" who are willing to speculate on what brought the towers down, a common blunder. The truth is: we do not know. The truth is that the collapses shared 11 characteristics of controlled demolitions, and that no such similar "collapses" have ever occurred in all of history except on that one September day in 2001, at the World Trade Center complex in New York City. That is quite notable.


Rovics and CommonDreams then make their greatest blunder of the piece:

"...if you want to look into “debunking the debunkers” yourself, there is plenty of information out there, and Popular Mechanics’ issue on the subject is a good place to start."

Rovics not only endorses a "propaganda" piece put out by Hearst Publishing, the pioneers of American yellow journalism -- he/they completely ignore that the Popular Mechanics article and book written from it were destroyed by Dr. David Ray Griffin's response: DEBUNKING 9/11 DEBUNKING.

I find it hard to believe this is an oversight when Rovics used the phrase, “debunking the debunkers” in his own piece.

The Popular Mechanics article that CommonDreams would have you accept as truth is about to be destroyed, by me, with one example, and their credibility thrown into question.

Popular Mechanics would have you believe that "Intercepts Not Routine."

"FACT [SIC]: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999." -Popular Mechanics, Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

I find it astounding that anyone who's reached the position of an editor would be so gullible as to believe that, but perhaps this Government Accountability Office report from 1994 will help:

"Other reserve and active units are well equipped to handle what has become the defense force's current focus--intercepting drug smugglers. (...) Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity.\3 The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress." --Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76)

This is an average of more than one NORAD scramble per day, every day of the year. This report exposes the misinformation (lie) in Popular Mechanics' article about the "decade before 9/11."

Some (idiots) may counter that everything changed after 1994, and suddenly they weren't scrambling jets anymore, until Payne Stewart embarassed them into acting, because it was on the news. Are we to believe that NORAD just stopped "visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress," or "intercepting drug smugglers?"

If so, prove it. Show the evidence.

Popular Mechanics used many such bogus arguments in their attack piece. I'll have to refer you to Griffin's response for more on that.

Popular Mechanics was in no way, shape, or form seeking the truth. They sought a passable narrative that would quell the masses, primarily using cherry picking of easily debunkable claims as Rovics has now done. The editor of the piece, Benjamin Chertoff, was revealed to be the cousin of the Department of Homeland Security head, Michael Chertoff, although B.C. denied it at the time.

Michael Chertoff as head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division is suspected of participating in the 9/11 cover up, and is a suspect in the attacks themselves. More than 200 Israeli agents were detained before and after 9/11, many of them for penetrating secure US government buildings. Several were caught celebrating the impact of the first plane into the first tower and of photographing themselves in front of the burning towers. This prompted an FBI Be On Look Out (BOLO) alert issued on the afternoon of 9/11.

All the Israelis were released quietly and sent back to Israel over the objections of some CIA and FBI officials.

Chertoff was also blamed for "sabotaging" Operation Greenquest, by Department of Homeland Security investigators when Tom Ridge was the head there (Newsweek, Dec. 10, 2003). Greenquest was the failed investigation to trace "Al Qaeda" money back to sources. The failure was so spectacular that the 9/11 Commission Report said:

"To date the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance." -THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, p 172.

Michael Chertoff has more history that is not heard about in most corporate or "progressive" media.

Rovics, who has his own throries about all of this, continues with his open microphone at CommonDreams:

"The fact is, the scientific community, while certainly not immune to political pressure, is generally able to function with a grounding in actual science, and is not capable of participating, as a community, in some kind of mass conspiracy of silence or cover-up."

Rovics makes a point which is true, but doesn't actually help his anti-truth main argument.

Dr. Steven Jones is such a scientist as Rovics describes. He's found scientific evidence of microscopic "steel spherules" in the dust from the WTC. These steel spherules, interestingly enough, can:

1) only have been formed in a molten state,


2) contain trace elements which Jones has concluded indicate thermate, a high temperature incendiary substance capable of cutting steel.

The ingredients for thermate, it should be noted, are not highly controlled substances, and are readily available to the public. As Jones has said, they can be bought "on Ebay."

Jones can't get his papers published in CommonDreams though, because of the "political pressure" which Rovics has unwittingly indicated. Although--Jones and his associates have now successfully published in a peer-reviewed civil engineering journal.

Rovics' argument, that somehow the "scientific community" is going to solve 9/11, a massive crime where the evidence has been withheld by the FBI and destroyed by FEMA, is a bogus argument. It's not the job of independent scientists to investigate.

Those handful of investigators hired by the government, and particularly by the Bush regime's Commerce Department, of which NIST is part, have -- to their credit -- been unwilling to sign off on the official story of building WTC7 to this day. Further, none have dared venture how the tower "collapses" supposedly progressed, and have stopped at the point where the "conditions for collapse" were allegedly reached. Whether those actual conditions were reached, or whteher there were other causes (explosives/incendiaries) is not settled science.

There are two main competing theses. Only one gets a fair hearing on many "progressive" news outlets like CommonDreams. The other is ridiculed and mocked, attacked with strawmen and irrelevancies.

Rovics' Blind Defense of "Progressive" Media

"These corporate media entities and the genocidal, ecocidal plutocracy they serve are the "gatekeepers" that need to be exposed. The truths they are trying to hide from us are the truths that need to be understood, and acted upon."

And one of those truths is that high treason took place on 9/11.

Rovics doesn't understand the massive library of evidence against these people, or else through cognitive dissonance, he chooses not to see.

It doesn't matter if the towers were brought down by demolition, and it doesn't matter if -- what they call "Al Qaeda" operatives -- were on the planes or not.

They deliberately let it happen.

This is proven beyond a reasonable doubt since 2002. That's treason. There is prima facie evidence to indict several high level government officials, but that, of course, is unthinkable in 2008 America.

Rovics has been misled by a blind faith in the "alternative" media. To believe that small media are uncorruptible is the height of naivete. Whether through fear of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" as some of these outlets have sunk to labeling others, or through covert manipulation, funding, ideological bias, whatever: we have been shortchanged by these media, much the same way we have been short-changed by corporate media.

Rovics' lengthy defense of Amy Goodman ignores how this issue has been treated on her very program. When Dr. Griffin's first book was published and began selling well (not before that point had she touched this subject at all), Goodman invited Dr. Griffin on to discuss The New Pearl Harbor. Griffin was assured that he would be interviewed alone, and he would be given the opportunity to voice his case.

When Griffin arrived for the interview, he was paired off against abrasive propagandist Chip Berlet, who attacked Griffin during his entire interview segment, making it appear that Griffin was less credible. DemocracyNow doesn't make a habit of pairing their guests with attack dogs. In Dr. Griffin's case, they made an exception.


"To both of these groups I beseech you - wake up! Wake up to the real, easily verifiable conspiracies - which are extremely big ones - and quit trying to distract us with all the nonsense about gatekeepers and controlled demolitions!"

The gatekeeping of many alternative media has been documented.

I'm talking about foundation funding purse strings that lead back to CIA as well as to right wing foundations.

As for controlled demolitons, it's not "nonsense" at all. It's a highly serious question. So serious, that massive disinformation campaigns such as from Popular Mechanics, BBC and the History Channel have been sent out to dupe otherwise well-meaning activists like David Rovics and the editors of websites like CommonDreams.


CommonDreams for people who

CommonDreams for people who still choose to sleep.

BTW, good post. Its exhaustive and that chart is a good one. Have seen it before and am glad someone took the trouble to remind us of these things.

We sometimes tend to forget that they are playing us from both sides.

Obama supporters beware.

Even WTPRN American Forum Host: Karen Kwiatkowski is giving positive overtones to Obama. Karen has been outspoken against the Iraq War, Constitutional issues and has Questioned 911 yet is falling for this dialectical deception from the Obama campaign.

"It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ..." (see

Shaping Public Opinion through propoganda, illusion,manipulation and misrepresentation.

It is probably the most important weapon they have against the mass consciousness of the American People and the world for that matter.

Thank God for the Alternative Media.

The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance.

So lets stop dreaming and be wide awake.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Disappointed in Rovics

I used to be somewhat impressed with David Rovics, it's too bad he had to go jump on the activist-bashing bandwagon. We're all in this together, we can't continue to fall for the divide and conquer tactics the elite-controlled media - including the "timid left" outlets - use to disrupt our efforts to spread the truth. Excellent article, John!

Jesse Goplen <-- real 9/11 truth songs, with more on the way!

CommonDreams Readers

I agree wholeheartedly that the editors at CommonDreams have an obvious bias toward presenting "9/11 Truth Movement" hit pieces, although I've found that the majority of readers commenting on these columns are very aware of the evidence for government complicity and the reality of state-sponsored false flag terrorism. The CommonDreams site discussion moderators don't seem to intervene much (except to cut off discussion on the Rovics column when the number of comments approached 700, by the far the longest thread I've ever seen on CommonDreams).

Here is a link to the Rovics column and discussion:

Robert Fisk's "Spare Me the Ravers" column also attracted a fair number of informed comments:

It's very encouraging to me to see evidence that the facts and legitimate questions about 9/11 are making it to the progressive community despite the resistance from folks like the editors at CommonDreams. Despite the site's official bias, CommonDreams is still a conduit for good information on the 9/11 false-flag operation through the readers' comments.

Is he a total

Is he a total hypocrite?

Reichstag Fire - David Rovics

The planes hit New York City
And thousands now are dead
"It was Arab terrorists"
This is what you said
Well if that is the truth
Then what have you got to hide
And what were you doing
On the day all those people died
Where the fuck were the fighter jets
Ordered by the FAA
And what is your explanation
For what you were heard to say
When you told the Air Force to stand down
Not to intercept
Did you plan to let it happen
Or are you just inept

There's some distressing information, sir
Which I think should be explained
Just which things have been lost
And just what has been gained
Like the thousands of put options
Bought days before the crash
If the money were collected
It would make quite a pretty stash
And the only stocks they bought
Were American and United
Deutsche Bank knows the answer
But the names have not been sighted
And is it just coincidence
That this firm in the private sector
Was once run by "Buzzy" Krongard
Ex-CIA Director

I am left to wonder
As the flames are reaching higher
Was this our latest Lusitannia
Or another Reichstag Fire

There's something fishy in Virginia
And I want an explanation
Why did they get the contract
What is Britannia Aviation
An one-man operation
Corporation with no history
He said he worked in Florida
But there he was a mystery
So is there a connection
I think it bears investigation
When the FAA found boxcutters
Does this cause you consternation
Hidden behind the seats
In these Delta planes
That had been fixed in Lynchburg
With Brittania at the reigns


You said Bin Laden was your friend
But he isn't anymore
Now that he's not fighting Russia
In your proxy war
Who called the FBI
Off the Bin Laden family trail
When so many times you had the chance
To re-write this sordid tale
Sudan in '96
The Taleban in 2001
Offered to turn him over
And right then you coulda won
But perhaps it is the case
That you're avoiding victory
That to justify your exploits
You must have an enemy


If you were not hiding from the truth
Then you'd have a truth commission
And not some masquerade
Kangaroo investigation
Hiring Henry Kissinger
The ancient master of deceit
To make sure all stones are left unturned
And the ruse is kept complete
And now you carry out your plans
Which you have had for decades
Conquering the world
With your troops and bombing raids
I see an evil regime
Led by an evil man
On Pennsylvania Avenue
Where this evil war began



Wow... I don't get it. Did Rovics have a brain transplant or what?!!! The lyrics are right on...

Having said that ...I did find an opinion piece on Common Dreams I frequently offer to people along with 9/11DVDs:
" I think we’re confronted with two conspiracies here: one to commit the crime, the other to ignore it even when the facts are known. ( Two sides of the same coin.) The man who accused me of slipping into the neurotic, aliens-are-among-us land of conspiracy nuts was unable to hear the evidence, perhaps because he was so utterly convinced by our government and media that conspiracies don’t exist, people who espouse them are dangerous fruitcakes, and if you begin to think like that, your whole house of cards wobbles then topples. Who wants that? Better a standing tower of marked cards, than having to admit the game is rigged and the ground is shaking.
America is steeped in conspiracy, and even more steeped in propaganda that discredits those who try to expose the conspiracies. Whether we’re talking about MLK, Jr., JFK, RFK, Iran-Contra, 9/11, or, most importantly, the status quo, anyone who works to uncover the truth is branded a “conspiracy nut” and discredited before any evidence has a fair hearing. The government/corporate/media version is THE VERSION. Anything else is illusory."

They must have threatened

They must have threatened his family or something. You don't go from a lyric like that to a total hitpiece. Not for money either.

A serious threat is the only explanation I can come up with that would make sense.

Excellent article, Mr. Doraemi !

Hopefully, Mr. Rovics will actually read it.

I suspect that Mr. Rovics has been coerced into taking the position he presently occupies, either that or his denial is as strong as one of my brother's, who won't even look at the video of WTC 7 going down.

I think that Mr. Rovics, like many others, will magically realize the truth about 9/11 when he feels safe to do so.

I hope that you and yours are well.

Keep up the great work!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

A grammatical aside

> or his denial is as strong as one of my brother's

The apostrophe does not look good where it is. What about:

or his denial is as strong as one of my brothers'

Hmm... That doesn't look good either. Perhaps:

or his denial is as strong as that of one of my brothers

English is a funny language. :)

Yes, English is a funny language

and not always very attractive to the eye or ear.

My brother's denial = denial of one brother.

My brothers' denial = denial of two or more brothers.

Unfortunately, when I should have been drilled in grammar, I was being taught creative writing, so you could quite well be correct that "his denial is as strong as that of one of my brothers" is proper. I think what I started to write was "his denial is as strong as my brother's", which I believe is technically correct but implies that I have only one brother, which is not the case.

I definitely need a good editor.

I hope that you and yours are well.

Cheers, Vesa!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Each language has its merits and problems

Where Finnish makes life easier is the lack of separate third-person pronouns for males and females. Accordingly, we never have to resort to awkward formulations like "he or she", "(s)he" or using "they" as if it were singular (e.g. "To each their own").

Common Dreams; Common Gatekeepers.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

Rovics Interviews

There was a follow-up interview with David Rovics published on UK Indymedia which is worth a read.

Also David Rovics was interviewed by Kevin Barrett (MP3) and this clarifies some things, like he hasn't read the Popular Mechanics book just the magazine article and the questions in his song were provided by a friend of his.

In addition see the thread on Truth Action about this article.

Focus on the complicit media instead

It seems that before people can grasp 911 truth, they must first be at least somewhat suspicious of the MSM. Common Dreams published this piece of mine, which only tangentially mentions 9/11. However I hoped to open people's minds to the idea that there is MUCH they are not being told. Perhaps then they will be willing to give more than a cursor glance at our compelling evidence.

Published on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 by
Not in the Script
by Sheila Casey

In the 1998 movie ‘The Truman Show,’ the hapless Truman lives his entire life on a TV set where, unbeknownst to him, everyone else is an actor. An unwanted child, Truman was adopted in infancy by a corporation that made him the center of the world’s longest running reality show, with hidden cameras trained on him night and day.

Because Truman has no one to tell him the truth, he goes many years before questioning his existence-even though a few people have attempted to set him straight. While opening presents one Christmas morning, a man bursts through the living room window screaming that it’s all a lie. Someone else parachutes onto the set to warn Truman. A pretty young extra who takes a shine to Truman tells him her real name before being hustled off the set by a producer.

On January 15 four activists from the audience interrupted The Tonight Show to shout out ‘Let Dennis debate,’ and ‘GE, NBC, put impeachment on TV.’ For Leno’s guest, Bill Maher, it must have seemed like déjà vu: in October, activists from We Are Change disrupted his show by yelling ‘Tell us about building seven.’

Like the man bursting through the window on The Truman Show, these interlopers were hustled away ASAP. They had only seconds to make an impression before being silenced.

There are eerie similarities between the set Truman inhabited and today’s media landscape. Like Truman, we believe we know what’s going on because we seem to have many independent sources of information which corroborate each other in important ways.

But almost all our media is controlled by just six corporations: Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann, and General Electric. Their holdings include the major TV networks, movie studios, book and magazine publishers, radio stations, cable channels, sports teams, theme parks and comic books. Except for conversations with family and friends, millions of Americans are never exposed to a point of view not vetted by the Big Six.

It appears that we’re being exposed to a wide range of ideas, when in fact certain opinions and facts will never be seen or heard, but by those few who aggressively search out alternative sources.

Perhaps flying across the country to bellow out your message in one frantic sentence on The Tonight Show seems extreme-to those who are oblivious to the extent to which the mainstream media has shut out the truth. Like the man bursting through the window on The Truman Show, these activists are making a heroic effort to penetrate the corporate bubble encasing us.

If you’re still under the spell of the Big Six, this may seem preposterous. We’ve been taught that we have freedom of the press, and perhaps we did, 25 years ago, when 50 corporations controlled our media, not five.

It’s beyond the scope of this essay to go into what is being hidden, and why. You can find out, if you really want to know. First you must have some inkling that there are important things you don’t know, and it’s no accident that you don’t know them.

The person parachuting onto the set to warn Truman that his life is a lie may simply be brushed off as a nutcase-or he might make Truman wonder, just a little, if all is not as it seems. The activists who disrupted The Tonight Show should do the same for us. You might consider yourself well informed, plugged in, in the know. Still, someone is trying desperately to tell you something. All is not as it seems.

Sheila Casey, who worked for years as an award-winning advertising writer, has returned to her first love of journalism after being jolted by the nation’s slide into fascism.

That was beautiful, Sheila!

Sometimes a more oblique approach is better than a head-on one.

Truth... really quite simple, no?

Thank you.

I would like to take this moment to decry George Orwell's utter failure of imagination.

Used to have sign that read, FACTS ARE A BITCH, HUH?!

and the other side said, WHAT PART OF LIE DON'T YOU GET?!

Great post Shiela! Loved the Truman show reference!!

Excellent article. Thank you.

I trust you have sent a copy to the ComonDreams editors.

CommonDreams is off my reading list. For me, 9/11 truth is now the litmus test for all information sources. Given the amassed evidence of treason and mass murder and its cover up leading to war crimes, crimes against humanity and nescient genocide, I consider any 'news' organization not willing or able to evaluate and report on this evidence as complicit and, in effect, accessories after the fact. Regardless of what other 'news' passes through them -- which must now be considered in the light of what they choose NOT to report -- such organizations should be shamed, shunned and boycotted for knowingly or unknowingly perpetuating a mass-delusional state within society that has put all of us and our Constitution at grave risk.

Rovics's latest comments

Rovics has answered the letter I sent him yesterday. I've come to the conclusion that he is a complete moron...

My letter -

His answer -

hey dp,

thanks for writing. my main point isn't about whether everything lines up in the official story -- i don't support the official story, and i don't think i ever said i did. unless by "official story" we mean whether al-qaeda exists, whether osama bin ladin exists, whether 15 saudis and 4 other guys hijacked a bunch of airplanes, etc. but of course i don't buy the official coverup commission -- the point is, as fisk also says, that investigation would be nice. however, without it, the idea that some people know "the truth" and the rest of us are ignoring it, denying it, etc., seems to be the main gist of the "truth movement." the very name is problematic! i think even the more reasonable elements of the movement talk about what "the whole world knows." it sounds -- and often is -- fanatical. that's my point -- not that investigation is a bad idea, no, on the contrary, it's a very good idea! all kinds of investigations! but in the meantime, there are so many horrific crimes our government is currently committing, plenty awful enough to bring down any state in a truly democratic society. if 9/11 was an inside job, it's only one of many other horrific crimes. so why obsess about the questions that aren't yet answered and make all kinds of accusations against those who don't "believe" the "truth" that "the whole world knows" (not quoting you here, but most of the people who have emailed me in recent weeks)? i think it's a serious distraction. in the scheme of things, i actually don't care why wtc7 came down. i do care about who it was who killed several hundred thousand iraqis, and who it is who is responsible for poisoning our land, air and water and killing off the population of this beautiful planet -- but i know who has done these things, no further investigations needed.

anyway, i don't think i need to revise my essay, but i find it troubling how many people seem to think that because i'm rejecting the idea that we should be jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence about various things means that i'm agreeing with "the official story." altho nobody ever says exactly what "official story" means, or which officials we're talking about. i don't think there's anywhere in my essay where i say i like henry kissinger.

take care,

Chomsky couldn't've said it better

Obviously there's no reasoning with the man. He's a hopeless case: "in the scheme of things, i actually don't care why wtc7 came down."

One thing so many ideological people like him never seem to get is that 9/11 truth is just shocking enough to ordinary people that its rise to prevalence will result in real policy change. Bad as they are, the kinds of things that are openly acknowledged to be undertaken routinely by government just aren't enough to excite the masses. 9/11 is enough.

This is old news...

...and I am encouraged by all the comments posted under the article on commondreams. Many of them are in favor of our position, I'd say at least two thirds of them. So can we forget this shill Rovics and move on. We can't let people like this discourage us, not when we have momentum going for us right now. We have to keep it up.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

Common Dreams

. . . snore . . .

get your video cameras out and start producing some truth TV. This is a waste of time. In my humble opinion.

Kevin Barrett interview

Kevin Barrett interviewed David Rovics on wtrpn on April 8th. Based on the interview, it is pretty clear to me that he simply hasn't bothered to look at the evidence seriously, as his appeals to authority regarding the collapse of the WTC buildings indicate.

It is the first hour on April 8th.

Disconnect between readers of Common Dreams and the readership

There seems to be a real disconnect between the editors of Common Dreams and the readership, as a deep knowledge of 9 11 Truth issues was revealed in the comments section on the Rovics' article.

I gave up on Common Dreams many months ago, although I was a fan initially. There are not a lot of popular and generally progressive sites that are also supportive of 9 11 Truth. Rob Krall's site at is one. I list others on my blog, as well as notes on the gatekeepers.


I do recommend that people who question the use of the phrase "left gatekeeper" go to . The chart above is from that site, and it is telling.

Disconnected like a fox

I can't say that CommonDreams is a Project Mockingbird operation, because information like that is "classified" for our "national security."

But we know Mockingbird exists, and what it does, which includes founding, funding, and bribing outlets across the ideological spectrum to sing the CIA's (nowadays, the CIA/Mossad's) song. (Dwelling on the CIA's lesser offenses, like drug running, that don't excite the general public much, is part of the program for misdirecting the Left into ineffectuality.)

Ho hum

Until today I'd never heard of Rovics. But then I don't follow contemporary pop music.

Reading through his commentary was tedious, because he said almost nothing of substance, and what substance there was was just rehash of traditional gatekeeper Left themes. The rest was merely ad hominem attacks on 9/11 truthers, based on the idea that their beliefs are prima facie wrong, so those people necessarily are literally deranged.

Maybe I don't go to enough antiwar events, but I've never seen 9/11 truthers go up to people -- much less musical performers while performing at antiwar events -- and scream to them about 9/11. This "red-faced" man -- if he even exists -- sounds dangerously psychotic and should've been arrested, or at least removed, for disturbing the peace. But Rovics bypasses all that, instead pretending that the man is somehow representative of what 9/11 truth is all about.

my correspondence with Rovics

I wrote him once after reading his article.

I'm really disappointed after reading your article "The Truth About The 9/11 Truth Movement". I had really enjoyed your set when I saw you open for Howard Zinn at Kent State back in the day. I really feel that your indictment of the 9/11 Truth community is way off base, and I feel that you definitely wouldn't be worse for wear if you dug in a little deeper with your research. And I really don't see what you're saying about earnest 9/11 Truthers being out to undermine progressive news outlets. I know that isn't true in NE Ohio. And honestly I can't imagine it being true anywhere.
For instance are you aware that the Neocon push for war in Afghanistan didn't start with 9/11? Are you aware that in July of 2001 that the Taliban were threatened with war by American diplomats during talks in Berlin?
Are you aware of General Mahmud Ahmed, the former head of Pakistan's ISI, strong connections to both US Intelligence agencies and terrorist hijackers? As well as his activities at the time of the 9/11 attacks?
Don't you find it telling that the new president of Afghanistan, Karzai, is a former employee of UNOCAL involved in the CentGas pipeline project, as well as being a mujahideen leader with ties to William Casey of the CIA, and as well George Bush?

Are you aware of the forensic analysis that Dr. Stephen Jones has been doing on structural steel, as well as metal particulates in the WTC dust?
Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?,
Dr. Steven E. Jones
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
Dr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Dr. Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Dr. Crockett Grabbe
Really any of the papers at are really a great place to get reliable, scholarly information. Please take the time to look.
As far as your take on experts and their take on things I think you should read this essay
Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC "Experts"

A few more great sites are Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Patriots Question 9/11

If you want info directly related to what you've read and accepted from Popular Mechanics, I really suggest David Ray Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking. I don't think you'll feel the same way about the Popular Mechanics publication.

I really hope you take the time to take another look at the evidence that is avaliable. Understanding is the answer to this issue that's dividing people.
Do I think some guy should heckle you during your performance, off course not.
Do I agree with you that people like Chomsky and Amy Goodman shouldn't be heckled due to their lack of apparent interest in the subject because they feel other matters are more important, sure. Although I feel their downgrading of the importance of the events of 9/11 is shortsided. And honestly I was quite offended when I saw Chomsky say that he felt that even if the US government pulled off 9/11 that it was of little significance.
Do I think that the term gatekeeper is tossed around more than it is the reality of the situation, sure. Although I think sometimes it is true.

Honestly, as both a long term activist and a 9/11 Truth activist, I've pondered the reluctance of some people that have been long time activists to look into the evidence of 9/11. I've noticed that 9/11 Truth has turned many apathetic citizens into pavement pounding activists. Sometimes I wonder if maybe members of the prior entrenched activist community look down on this new breed of activist because so many of the newbies didn't care enough to take a stand before the tyranny was shooved right up in their faces. Maybe there's some justification in that sentiment. But I feel that some people should put aside their feelings that some of their thunder has been taken by new faces, and remember that their goal in the first face was to join with others to combine their thunder into a sound of freedom that drowns out the existance of tyranny.

As one concerned citizen to another, please take another look

I received the following response.

sorry to disappoint you. i'm familiar with the stuff you're writing about, and i think i'm being misunderstood. i'm not touting the government line here -- i agree that the u.s. has been funding bad guys all over the world for decades, and killing millions of people, etc. this is also a matter of the public record. what's not is the controlled demolition theory and other stuff. my main point is not that questions shouldn't be asked -- they should. my point is that accusing progressives (or others) who disagree with the controlled demolition theory (etc.) of being gatekeepers or idiots or whatever else, is very boring and very counterproductive and also assinine and various other things.

I then sent him the following letter and have yet to hear a response from him.

I'm wondering what makes you disagree with the controlled demolition theory? Nothing else makes any sense to me. I haven't seen anything that comes close to giving any other feasable explanation. The physics of it is a big factor. How could anything except explosives, taking out key building support structures, cause the building to collapse at freefall speed into the path of greatest resistance? 118 policeman and firefighters reported explosions going off in the building. There is testimony from several workers, including William Rodriguez, that worked in the sub basement levels that reported the first explosion going off before the first plane hit. On both twin towers the floors surrounding the plane impact points had special fireproofing work done to them shortly prior to 9/11. In addition to that the side of the pentagon that was hit was also the only side that had been reinforced for protection against missle attack. Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III were on the board of the company handling security at the twin towers. You ever try to find a picture of Wirt Walker III. I feel that if there's no public pictures of a member of the most influential political dynasty in the world, that just maybe this guy is pretty shady.
Now don't get me wrong. I find it possible that Al Queda really did hijack planes and fly them into the twin towers, although I don't feel that Al Queda involvement has been proven. However, at the very least I feel Cheneys crew knew, let it happen, and bombed the twin towers to make the attack worse in order to further their goals. Think about the effect 9/11 would have had if all that happened was jets were flown into buildings. What if only a couple hundred people had died. Would that kind of attack been enough to attack the constitution, and silence political opposition and the media?