Remembering -- and forgetting -- 9/11

San Francisco Bay Guardian Politics Blog
by Steven T. Jones

Do we really know the full truth about what happened on 9/11, the devastating attacks that occurred eight years ago today? Based on my research and assessment of the inquiries that followed that horrific event, I don’t think anyone can claim to know the full truth. But that hasn’t stopped conservatives and know-it-all pundits from demonizing and belittling skeptics of the official 9/11 theory in an aggressive fashion in recent weeks.

The most disturbing example was the truly scary right-wing propagandist Glenn Beck’s successful crusade against Van Jones, forcing his resignation from the Obama Administration mostly for having signed a letter calling for an investigation of whether the Bush Administration ignored warnings about the attacks and then used them to further their foreign policy goals.

Why is that suggestion so outrageous? As even the ludicrously narrow 9/11 Commission investigation (which Harper’s Magazine and other respectable voices dismissed as a whitewash) showed, top Bush officials were warned of impending al Qaeda attacks in the month before they occurred, they did nothing, and then used the attacks to launch their so-called “War on Terror,” even discussing invading Iraq (which wasn’t involved in 9/11) as the World Trade Center still smoldered.

That doesn’t mean that George W. Bush planned the attacks, or that there were controlled demolitions of the WTC towers and Building 7, or any of the theories that are so easy to mock. But isn’t it possible that they made a conscious decision to just stand down, take the hit (in whatever form that took), and use it as a pretext for their well-known plans to go on the offensive? Isn’t that a question worth exploring, if for no other reason than the historical record?

Local media also love to dismiss those who call for a more thorough investigation of 9/11. SF Weekly and the San Francisco Chronicle have recently taken shots at 9/11 skeptics, substituting certitude and name-calling for curiosity and intellectual honesty. I was even dragged into their crosshairs and shot up, even as they refused my advice to read my research into the matter. It’s just so much easier to dismiss and belittle than to investigate.

Listen, I understand that the 9/11 truth movement seems a little nutty, and I think some of their claims are pretty outrageous and many have been credibly disproven. But the conclusions that I arrived at in my Guardian cover story of more than four years ago still hold true today: the scariest thing about this movement is they may be right that more occurred than we know...

(See for the entire article with links).

I still remember the look of shock and horror that Steven T. Jones gave me when I mentioned the Oklahoma City bombing back in 2004 (He had never questioned, nor heard anything challenging the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing, either.) The SFBG took plenty of hits and stood up for the Truth Movement in the past couple of weeks, as well as substantially subsidizing the ads that the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance placed for the 5th annual 9/11 Film Festival which they publicly sponsored. I don't think Steven T. Jones has looked at the work of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, nor Steven E. Jones work. I did send the SFBG complementary tickets to the film festival, but I have no idea if any of them actually came; they haven't yet actually written about the latest research or films.

The way I see it you have just two choices

with regard to the official story for 911. 1) you are ignorant of the event and have never researched it at all
or 2) your part of the cover-up. Sorry but it really is that simple. Only an uninformed person or liar can support the official story. That's what I have been telling people in the past year. The evidence is overwhelming that the official story can't be true. For more than a decade I made a living researching the truth, ethically bound to be objective and substantiate my opinion etc. Surrounded by various people and organizations with different agendas, trying to sway my reports in one direction or another. Sometimes things were objectively within a range of possibilities or correctness. The official story of 911 is not like that and that's what I tell people. No one has made a mistake here, sad but true, our government is lying to me and you. Sorry about that folks and unless someone takes me or my family out in a boat showing me where the last guy who told the truth was put overboard etc, that's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Could it be you read the article too fast?

did you probably read Steven "T." Jones and thought carole is talking about Steven "E". Jones?

Authoritarianism is confused with patriotism

Thus one must simply accept the notion that high ranking officials always act in good faith. It doesn't matter if there isn't any proof this is so. It doesn't matter if there isn't any (reliable) proof that torture worked as claimed. If the political/media establishment says something is true then it is true. Period. Anything else is seditious, al Qaeda sympathizer conspiracy nonsense.

If 9/11 skeptics are so off base then why is there so much secrecy eight years later? Why are key MFR's on the NARA site still pending classification review? AFAIK, the 9/11 Commission turned their records over to NARA in '04. Yet the intelligence agencies are sitting on the records. What exactly do the intelligence agencies want hidden from the public?