OCT supporter asks some good and some dumb questions. Note; for the sake of argument, i go along with his arguments about the Pentagon, as I personally believe the issue is an intentional distraction. I don't claim to know for sure what hit the Pentagon, I see how it could've been 77, but there are still anomalies- i advocate the release of ALL the video cameras- 360 degrees, the E4B, C4 and lack of fighter jets should be on those, too, right, in addition to non-CG footage of 77, if that's what it was?

http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2008/05/washington-state-greens-promote-911_30.html

In researching Washington State Green Party for a story on their advocacy of a deceptive referendum which would divest Seattle's pension fund from companies doing business in Israel (a story I hope to post soon), I was surprised to discover the extent to which they promote "9/11 truth" and other related conspiracy theories.

They have on their platform committee a working group devoted to "9/11 truth" (read here and here and here) which has succeeded in getting the national Green Party to consider a platform provision on that subject that seems likely to be approved. (Read that resolution here.) The resolution refers to "the purported crash of United Airlines Flight 93" and calls for an investigation by "impartial experts in the fields of physics, structural engineering (and) architecture".

The Washington State Greens' website features an essay called "9/11 Truth is THE Issue: A Lesson for Green Politics" by Richard Curtis, PhD. Curtis is adjunct professor of philosophy at Seattle University and a prominent member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin's group who also chairs the Green's "9/11 truth" working group. In addition to being an advocate for 9/11-related conspiracies, he's also an advocate of Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory (read here), arguing that FDR knew of the attack beforehand and let it happen to facilitate U.S. entry into the war. This extremely absurd belief, originated by "historical revisionist" / Holocaust denier Harry Elmer Barnes (read here) is common among "truthers". They are apparently unaware of how close Japan came to winning the war at Pearl Harbor. If the Japanese had destroyed our fuel supplies and aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor, the U.S. very well might have lost the war in the Pacific. There is absolutely no way that risk would have been deliberately taken.

The failure of conspiracy theorists to consider the tremendous risks and minimal benefits of the inside jobs they imagine is just as true of 9/11 'inside job' conspiracies as well. Why would the Bush administration risk having an attack on the United States to start a war? Haven't these "9/11 truth" people ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin? If the U.S. were seeking to create an illusory act of aggression as a pretext for a war, why would it have been an attack on New York and Washington, and not an attack on a U.S. aircraft or ship, or the border of an ally being breached, or something with fewer loose ends and risk of exposure. Not to mention, as evil as the conspiracy theorists believe our government to be, who would believe that they actually want that sort of harm to come to this country? Setting aside the innumerable errors of fact in their case, as well as the questionable (and always essential) belief that the conspiracy could be kept quiet, the "truther" theories never really give a plausible motive for taking such incredible risks when lesser ones would have been just as effective.

Dr. Curtis argues at length in his piece that the 9/11 "official conspiracy theory" was a lie generated by a corrupt two party system, thus linking the Green Party's reason for being (i.e. as an alternative to the two parties) with the "9/11 truth" movement. I strongly recommend that anyone considering support for the Greens or their proposals read this Green Party document (CLICK HERE) before they do so to get an indication of where the Greens are coming from.

The document connects 115 disparate assertions in "proving" that 9/11 was an inside job, but, amazingly, cites this website: (Serendipity: Geopolitics, Drugs, Religion, Music and More!) as its sole source. It contains several demonstrably false assertions, including several to the effect that no plane hit the Pentagon. It does not address the hundreds of witnesses who ACTUALLY SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON INCLUDING AN A.P. REPORTER (read here). (No explanation for the missing passengers and crew of that flight is offered. In fact, in a debate with Chip Berlet on Democracy Now, David Ray Griffin himself was unable to defend his assertion that a missile and not a plane struck the Pentagon other than to say that his case was cumulative as opposed to deductive, and therefor not as weak as its weakest links (read here). I spite of this, he and his associates such as Curtis still make these baseless allegations.)

Curtis also falsely re-asserts the commonly believed falsehood that there was an unusual spike in put orders for stocks which would reasonably be expected to go down in price as the result of the attack, an argument which is addressed and DEBUNKED HERE. Curtis also implies that Zbignew Brzezinski was in with Bush on the conspiracy, an allegation I'm sure that Brzezinski would find very puzzling indeed.

Green Party supporters: feel free to contact me to let me know why I shouldn't think this stuff is just plain mishuga.

By the way, if you haven't read the transcript of David Ray Griffin's DEMOCRACY NOW! debate with Chip Berlet, you should. You really get a sense of the twisted logic and shoddy research underlying the "truth" movement. READ IT HERE. Read the Popular Mechanics webpage on the attack on the Pentagon HERE.

My 2 replies; his comments are moderated, i don't know if they'll be published:

1) nice roundup of 9/11 releases from the WA Greens- the 115 item list is from David Ray Griffin's book "9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions", which references many other sources besides the serendipity site, which, as you imply, is of questionable credibility, and, imho, reduces the credibility of whoever's responsible at the Greens, and the WA Greens by extension. There have been rifts in the Green party in recent years; as it's grown, the same type of corporate-establishment elements that have hijacked the Dems and Reps have been infiltrating 3rd parties as well, so it could be a purposeful attempt at sabotage.

Considering the apparent lack of damage at the Pentagon, i can forgive people for believing a missile hit the Pentagon- i did at first- however, at a site linked from that same page, there is analysis and photos showing that there's a 100' gash in the base, space where the engines were, and the fuselage sized hole- plus there's all the eyewitnesses.

Better questions about the Pentagon are why 77 was able to fly toward DC for 30" after 2 towers had been hit, why there was no fighter jet or ack gun defense, how Hanjour could've flown a 757 when he couldn't fly a Cessna, why the plane hit the mostly empty (cept for civvy contractors and defense accountants), recently-reinforced section of the Pentagon opposite the top brass?

The 9/11 Commission ignored all these, and excluded Norman Mineta's testimony that Cheney was in charge when he got there before 830a, contradicting Cheney's version, which Cheney himself had changed. Mineta said something like; There was a young man who would come in from time to time and say, The plane is 50 miles out...30 miles out...10 miles out- do the orders still stand? And Cheney whipped his head around and said Of course the orders still stand! Have you heard anything to the contrary?

2) "Why would the Bush administration risk having an attack on the United States to start a war? Haven't these "9/11 truth" people ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin? If the U.S. were seeking to create an illusory act of aggression as a pretext for a war, why would it have been an attack on New York and Washington, and not an attack on a U.S. aircraft or ship, or the border of an ally being breached, or something with fewer loose ends and risk of exposure. Not to mention, as evil as the conspiracy theorists believe our government to be, who would believe that they actually want that sort of harm to come to this country?"

"Who would believe"; you answered your own question- i suppose the Establishment insiders who studied the lessons of the Reichstag Fire, the Maine, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, etc. figured they would just keep it covered up with their corporate-controlled media and Republocrats- I suppose these dinosaurs hadn't noticed we now live in the network age of new media. 9/11 was too over the top, eventually no one will believe it.

You sound intelligent- you haven't bought the BS being circulated by useful idiots and neocointelpro; spend some time searching The Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project