Justin Raimondo Wants 9/11 Truth, Yet He Insults 9/11 Truthers

Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com has written an editorial about the evidence (all old news to 911Blogger readers) regarding Israel's possible role in the attacks. He begins by condemning the government and the media for smearing and/or destroying the careers of anyone who questions the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Then, without even taking a breath, he turns right around and smears everyone who -- after studying the vast amount of scientific and common-sense evidence -- believes the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition (as part of an inside job) and that no plane hit the Pentagon.

The majority of the reader comments at the end of the editorial (some excellently written) take strong issue with Raimondo's blanket insult of the the 9/11 Truth Movement.


9/11: Our Truth, and Theirs: The "official" 9/11 narrative doesn't make sense
by Justin Raimondo, September 11, 2009

... We are asked to believe that 19 men, armed with the most basic weapons, somehow managed to elude the biggest, most expensively-accoutered intelligence apparatus in the world — and the intelligence agencies of our allies, to boot. Utilizing nothing but box-cutters and the knowledge gleaned from a few weeks at flight school, these supermen somehow managed to steer those planes into two of the most visible potential terrorist targets in the US, one of which had been successfully targeted by terrorists before. They did this with no help from any foreign intelligence agency, no nation-state in on the plot, and they did it for less than $100,000.


The more distance in time from the actual event, the odder such an assertion seems. Eight years to the day, the official account of 9/11 seems more anemic –and inadequate – than ever. Yet anyone who questions the official story – the narrative of 19 Arab dudes going on what would seem to be a rather quixotic jihad, haphazardly making their way through a strange foreign country on their own, all the while readying themselves for The Day That Changed History – is denounced as a "conspiracy theorist," a crackpot, and worse.

Of course, some of the people who challenge the official story are, indeed, crackpots: they think some kind of "controlled demolition" took place inside the World Trade Center, and that no plane hit the Pentagon.

This is very convenient for enforcers of the Official Truth: it’s easy to write these people off as nutso, and even easier to tar everyone who questions crucial aspects of the approved narrative with the same broad brush. ... [emphasis mine - MJW]


P.S.: Regarding the three links in the body of the excerpt, I had initially hoped that Raimondo might be trying to trick non-truthers into looking at compelling -- not crackpot -- evidence. However, his subsequent over-the-top condemnation of the truth movement forced me to abandon that theory, even if there might be an almost imperceptible smidgen of truth in it. He also seems to have selected the second and third clips because they are far enough out of context that they aren't as compelling as they might otherwise be.

I saw that article

I tried to post a comment at the comment link at the bottom of the article. I had signed up ok and created and account but could not post a reponse. My comment appeared to be accepted, but when I refreshed the page it was not there. I tried again with the same result an hour or so later. There was no error message to indicate the submission had failed, nor was there any indication the post was being held for moderation, but my comment never made it in with the rest of the posted responses..

Since I couldn't post a comment, I put what I wanted to say in an email and sent it to to their feedback link at backtalk AT antiwar.com and what I believe to be Raimondo's own email address which I already had in my address book as justin AT antiwar.com (take out spaces and replace AT with @). I never got back any acknowledgment, but neither were there any error messages re. undeliverable emails, so I am assuming that both email addresses were valid.

Here is what I emailed them:

Justin, you are off track attempting to paint the WTC controlled demolition proponents as nutbars. There are 834 architects and engineers (including structural engineers) that say the idea that the buildings could have fallen as they did solely as a result of a gravity driven collapse after impact damage from planes and heat damage caused by fires just does not hold water from a very basic physics point of view. They are all member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, http://ae911truth.org .

After delaying putting out a report on the cause of the 9/11 collapse of WTC Building 7 some 8 years after the building fell, NIST initially tried to claim that the building fell some 40% slower than freefall. This would make sense, as in incidents of an unplanned collapse due to structural failure, the internal structure of the building offers resistance to the fall and slows the fall from the optimum rate which would be freefall speed. However, a high school physics teacher, David Chandler, published on google (actually it was Youtube, my mistake /Stewball) a video using free software available to high school students to prove that the WTC 7 actually was in freefall for a period of several seconds.

NIST was forced to recant and admit there was a freefall component to the collapse of WTC 7, even though their own well-credentialed engineers with access to the latest and greatest technology had not noticed it until it was brought to their attention by a high school physics teacher using software from a high school physics lab. Why the big deal? Because if the building was falling at freefall acceleration, straight down into its own footprint, it meant that all structural elements capable of offering resistance had to be removed simultaneously within a fraction of a second of each other, Random damage cause by fire or falling debris friom Towers 1 & 2 (WTC 7 was not struck by a plane) could not accomplish that. Explosives are absolutely necessary.

Interestingly enough several scientists have found traces of a military grade high tech explosive known as nano-thermite or super-thermite in dust samples from 9/11. They published their results in a peer-reviewed paper. More details on that here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Here is an online debate between some Norwegian scientists and the scientists who published the information about the nano-thermite explosives found in the WTC dust: http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-...

Why don't you tell us your scientific and engineering background Justin, so we can evaluate how much credibility you have when putting forth opinions on the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings compared to the credibility of of the 834 architects and engineers of http://ae911truth.org?

I suggest you get hold of a high school physics textbook and look for Newtons Laws of Motion in the index and give them a review. After that with your blinkers removed, you can head over to http://ae911truth.org and review the papers, videos, lectures etc and give the material on that web site a careful once over.

BTW, ae911Truth.org just had an article detailing the evidence for controlled demolition of the WTC buildings published on one of the leading architectural news sites on the web:



A very aggravating media site

And I say this because this was the first site on the internet that alerted me to something very wrong with the official story. Justin told us about the connection between the Mossad and 9/11, and I even bought the book.
And then nothing................for a very long time..................except some lame insults about 9/11 truthers.

My take on this? He's getting some foundational support, just like Alternet does. These foundations, at the very top, are many of the same elites you find everywhere controlling corporations, funding pro Israel groups, etc etc.

I used to contribute to antiwar.com, until Justin insulted me for my KNOWING that 9/11 was an inside job.
Good information can be found on his site about what is going on in the world as far as war and occupation, but how can I support a site that censors information about the most important day in US history?

Here are some of the websites that have conspired to blackout and even mock the facts and evidence of 9/11: Alternet (one of the worst because of Joshua Holland, senior writer and editor), DemocracyNow! with Amy Goodman (they banned me because of posts about 9/11), CommonDreams (banned with first mention of 9/11 truth), Counterpunch (insults to 9/11 truth), the Nation magazine, MotherJones, and others..
There IS a conspiracy to ensure that NO positive coverage of any 9/11 truth information is presented. Why can we not call this treason?

I wouldn't say those sites "conspire"

against 9/11 Truth. It's more like they all follow a common form of censorship. They're not necessarily coordinated in their censorship.

Randolph Bourne Foundation

The website says it is a division of the Randolph Bourne foundation. I looked at their website which has nearly no information about itself. A biography of Randolph Bourne, his most famous work, Youth and Life. Other than that, no mission statement, board of directors, etc... kinda makes you wanna go "hmmmm....?"



"Propaganda is not meant to fool the intelligencia, it is merely meant to provide them an excuse to avoid seeing ugly realities, they’d sooner not believe.”
-- Joseph Goebbels, Nuremburg War Crimes Trials