The Nation: "The Paranoid Style at Pacifica"

The Paranoid Style at Pacifica
posted by Eyal Press on 10/22/2009 @ 4:20pm

In his Wall Street Journal column yesterday, Tom Frank paid homage to Richard Hofstadter's famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." As Frank noted, Birthers convinced that Barack Obama's birth certificate was forged in a plot to turn the United States into a fascist state are heirs to a long tradition of conspiracy thinking that has periodically flourished on the fringes of the American right.

But the paranoid style has seeped into some institutions on the left as well. For proof, look no further than a recent meeting of the Pacifica radio network's National Board, where a resolution was introduced that requires all programmers to disclose funding sources above $5,000. "The reason I created this motion," Chris Condon, a member of Pacifica's National Governance Committee, explained, "is because there has been a lot of debate about whether or not Amy Goodman has received CIA conduit foundation funding from the Ford Foundation and other places."

Amy Goodman is, of course, the co-host of Democracy Now!, an unabashedly progressive news program that airs on over 800 stations across the country. As anyone who has listened to even five minutes of the program knows, Goodman is about as likely to be on the payroll of the CIA as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky. She has probably devoted more airtime to dissecting the CIA's transgressions in the past decade than any other member of her profession.

No matter, the Governance Committee at Pacifica passed the resolution, a step taken to discover whether you-know-who has been funneling money to Goodman to cover up "the truth" about 9/11. "We'd like to know what kind of 9/11 coverage the Ford Foundation paid for," said Condon. "The whole issue of 9/11 and Amy Goodman has been ongoing for years and years and years."

The disquieting coverage was apparently just journalism, as when Goodman had the gumption to ask David Ray Griffin, a 9/11 Truther who appeared on her program several years ago, to name some engineers who supported the theory that passenger planes could not have brought down the Twin Towers. (The real cause was explosives set off by the attack's covert plotters, 9/11 Truthers allege.) When Griffin referred vaguely to the notes in his book, Goodman persisted: "Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down." "I'm sorry, I don't have that information at my fingertips," Griffin replied.

The suspicions about Goodman would be laughable were they not coming from board members at an independent radio network with a proud history of promoting progressive dialogue and dissent. Pacifica was founded by conscientious objectors a half-century ago and has stations in some of the largest markets (New York, Los Angeles, Washington) in the country. In the late 1990s, some of the network's supporters fought off what they believed was an attempt by the National Board to standardize programming and soften its edge.

The struggle was successful, but the unintended consequence was to democratize Pacifica in a way that has ended up empowering many cranks. Instead of serving as a vibrant home for incisive programming that challenges the assumptions of mainstream debate, the network has fallen into the hands of sectarians and crackpots whose control over the Governance Committee may be strong but whose hold on reality appears tenuous. is gone....

I just checked, and the domain name is now assigned to a foreign language management web site.

Does anybody know what became of the original?

question left gatekeepers

Eyal Press could have defended Amy Goodman without insulting the intelligence of those who question the official account of 9/11. It seems illogical to accuse people with reasonable questions of being "crackpots" when the problem is clearly Amy's refusal to address those questions. As a journalist, surely it is her responsibility to investigate such an important issue, not just ignore it.

I have come to the realization that much of the so-called "alternative media" is little more than a rehash of msm with a slightly different spin... they don't ever provide a comprehensive narrative or a cohesive framework through which their audience might gain some insight into the power structures that control capital and determine policy. Nor do they provide their audience any tools or ideas for dealing with the forces arrayed against civil society. They are, in the main, just as boring, depressing and disempowering as their mainstream counterparts.

It IS possible that Amy is getting money from the CIA

It is quite an oddity that Amy Goodman has avoided the topic of 9/11 for eight years. It is even more odd that Alternet, CommonDreams, Counterpunch,, MotherJones, and all of the other progressive alternative media sites have done the same.
In fact, it is impossible that they just don't understand the issues, or have missed the glaring contradictions in the official story of 9/11.
Check out the foundational support for sites like Alternet....................the foundations are fronts for the biggest international (Kissinger type) corporations and financial institutions in the world with leaders that can easily be connected to groups that would not want the truth out.

Amy and Joshua Holland of Alternet and others have purposely censored this information. It is not far fetched to call this treason. We need to know exactly why these journalists would avoid the most important issue of our time, with such blatant lies about 9/11 so easily seen.

There could be many reasons

these "progressive" sites have avoided 9/11. The fear generated by the Bushies after 9/11 really scared away some journalists. I think at this point, so many years later, journalists see no career advantage to addressing 9/11, as long as the "mainstream" encourages this attitude.

Today's Alternet story:

"Obama is Keeping Bush's Worst War on Terror Policies Firmly In Place," is another misdirection sham. Still I couldn't resist posting a comment. "Scientific Proof of 9/11 Treason......Time to Rethink!" (under top thread 'piling on', as zeitgeist)

Anyone want to step in? The last time I posted on Alternet, simuvac and I had the top 2 comments and Alternet pulled the entire article! How's that for censorship?


I left one. Thanks for the alert.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -

Wish I could but I've been banned from Alternet.

Alternet doesn't like it when I would comment that they have censored 9/11 truth from their site.
So they banned me.
I wish I could jump in.

Joshua Holland, senior writer and editor, has made it clear that the only time he will allow any evidence that the official 9/11 story is a lie is when he insults and mocks the 9/11 movement.
It is clear he knows there are lies, but he censors all of the information. I feel this is a form of treason. Because of him and others like him, millions have died in the war on terror, and we have been left with the Patriot Act, two occupations, covert actions in many other places, lots of homeless people, torture.
These horrors have all come because Americans were kept from the truth by Alternative media, which exists solely to bring us the news that the msm will not present for us.


I wrote a comment to Michael Moore on Commondreams.

Michael had written:-
"We invaded two nations that didn't attack us, failed to find the real terrorists and, in effect, ignited our own wave of terror. People all over the world wondered if we had gone mad".

I wrote:-
Michael, the real terrorists are still at large.
Time for a criminal investigation.

My comment remained up overnight. Then I failed to find it.

So I sent it in again.

Also I wrote to Huffington Post.
Arianna had written that she detests 9/11 truthers.
I wrote that it follows that Arianna detests me.

My comment failed to show up on Huffington Post.

We face a powerful stone wall.

And we keep the pressure on.

Common Dreams banned me.................

after just one comment about 9/11 truth.
Pure censorship.....................
= treason.

Why is the "leftwing media" obsessed with coddling the neocons?

Ironically, it boils down to the bizarre notion that the major icons on the left, such as Noam Chomsky, David Corn, David Swanson, Amy Goodman, Victor Navasky, Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington, Howard Zinn, and the other self-styled "left-gatekeepers" are the very people who are helping the planners, organizers and perpetrators of 9/11 get away with mass murder (whoever "they" happen to be). Goodman et al are helping maintain the status quo by not rocking the boat, keeping the 9/11 issue taboo, preventing their left-oriented readership from getting the salient facts, and using the "conspiracy theory accusation" as the default (kneejerk) response. Some supposedly "left" leaning websites, such as the Daily Kos and AriannaHuffington, have even gone to the extreme measure of banning anyone who even brings up the notion that 9/11 was other than what was sold to the world by the Bush Administration, the Pentagon and intelligence officials! From all the best evidence that is out there, it is abundantly clear that "the planners, organizers and perpetrators of 9/11" were not "19 arabs and a man in a cave who hate our freedoms", but unknown parties who are motivated by some very "NON-liberal" politics, such as across-the-board corporate welfare, a quantum leap in militarism and warmongering, a general rollback of civil liberties and human rights, imposition of a big brother type "surveillance society", an obsession with security, secrecy and conformity, and all the other ugly consequences and programs that were rapidly enabled by the events of 9/11.

If there was any logic or justice, Amy Goodman and the so called "progressive" publications should have jumped all over 9/11 with a fine-tooth comb, especially considering that many of the demonstrable lies, absurdities and untenabilities of the official fairy-tale became glaringly apparent from very soon after the event. But no... they clammed up and closed ranks, just like the weasels and appeasers in the mainstream corporate media. To evade and deny the subject that has been the direct cause of all the policy set which Goodman etc. have been bellyaching about so bitterly for the last 8 years, is a bit like investigating the destruction in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in 2005, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that a massive Category 3 hurricane had just barrelled through the area (!!); it is that blatant and illogical.

I am not one to idly speculate, but the fact that all these left-media leaders have been effectively protecting their apparent political enemies leads one to consider the possibility that they have been coerced (by parties unknown) into such an illogical and mysterious set of non-reactions and silence. Perhaps advertisers threatened to withdraw sponsorship if pro-9/11 truth material was published? Perhaps they are scared of being name-called as "tinfoil hatters" or "wackos" in the mainstream press and television? Perhaps they are scared of losing tenured positions in academia? Perhaps they did indeed get threats directed against themselves and/or family members... these things really can, and do happen. I am purely guessing here... because without threats, the stand take by the "left" media makes absolutely *zero* sense. To be fair, I am sure that Amy Goodman (and her cohorts) are enjoying their often well-paid careers in broadcasting, and in these crazy economic times, I am sure that nobody is that keen to jeopardize their livelihoods. However, the inaction of the progressive left is brought more starkly into focus by the fact that many of those who *have* stepped up to the plate are represented by the (libertarian) right, not to mention that two of the most important movers and shakers in the 9/11 Truth movement (physicist Dr. Steven Jones and architect Richard Gage) are moderate Republicans.

Parenti on 'conspiracy phobia'

Is it invariably the case, 100 per-cent of the time, that this gatekeeping is the result of being on the take from some government agency? All gatekeeping is damaging, but I think the explanations for it can vary, and there's only so much we can determine from where we are. But I do think that sometimes we can forget that 'intelligence' isn't everything when it comes to discerning the truth. Besides intellect, there's horse sense, and having what you might call a robust bullshit detector. I also think that the self-image of some of these so-called progressives as being so much smarter than the rest of the citizenry just can't allow for admitting that they were mistaken about 9/11. To do so now would mean that they would have to admit having been slower to realize this than a lot of very average less-educated folks. Their psyche just can't allow for this, so they huddle together, hurling the same tired old epithets.

I also think that in Islamic extremism, the powers that be found an enemy that Western leftists are more prepared to believe the worst about than would be the case with respect to other purported enemies.

Michael Parenti's observations from some years ago are again very relevant here. Here's a link, with prefatory remarks (c2002?) re relevance to 9/11 gatekeeping by Brian Salter of

fear of confrontation amongst the Left allows groupthink dynamic

Psychologically, I have noticed a tendency of circles on the left to be very averse to any perceived confrontation, especially with people perceived as their 'leaders.' I was at a house party-type salon a few weeks ago in Beverly Hills with Max Blumenthal presenting his book "Republican Gomorrah (sp?)." After waiting for my chance during Q+A, I provocatively pointed out that, while Blumenthal did a very interesting job elucidating the deep psychological kinks of the reactionary 'religious' right and the links of serial woman killer Ted Bundy to elements thereof, he was speaking to and from within a party in full power with a president who, in terms of the term "serial woman-killer" literally meaning killing women over and over again (GWOT drone strikes), had likely well-surpassed Bundy's carnage. So, I asked him to take his analysis further and openly pondered whether the problems of the impotence of the left came from an unwillingness to face difficult truths and the facts thereof. Blumenthal had mentioned earlier in the evening that he would theoretically support a woman in the audience running for the local pacifica board of KPFK as long as she "wasn't a 9/11 truther." So, towards the end of my statement/question, I asked, what do you want- a "9/11 liar?"- and mentioned the left's troubled relationship with confronting the basic facts of 9/11.

Blumenthal started his answer by early on saying that "9/11 truthers are horrible people" or something directly to that effect. He then told a few stories of some alleged "truthers" harrassing people in Shanksville and purposefully misquoting people. I then asked whether he was talking about the thousands of family members of the victims of 9/11 who still want their very basic questions answered about their loved ones' deaths or the almost 1000 architects and engineers for 9/11 truth pointing out the very basic scientific facts showing those buildings and the humans therein to have been demolished in a controlled manner. I was then told to be quiet since I had "already asked" my question by the moderator Louis Vandenburg, the producer of KPFK show host Ian Masters who has called those investigating 9/11 "nuts" and "navel-gazers" and worse. Numerous others in the room told me to be quiet and shut up since Blumenthal had given his answer. I said, with an emotional Libran sense of injustice and a bit of very honest and raw hurt in my voice, that these matters shouldn't be silenced, and asked whether others in the room felt like that was a respectful way to deal with serious debate.

Blumenthal immediately picked up on my hurt and pounced on it by saying, "there's your 9/11 truthers for you." "What, are you going to cry like Glen Beck?!" At this point, I was asked to leave the house, since the "owners were uncomfortable with me being there." I relinquished since the owners appeared to be going along with this. I asked whether I could use the bathroom before I left, was allowed, did so, and then left through the front door while the evening began to carry on. While one man, a 9/11 truth advocate from LA, came out to mediate and be with the man of the house and me to discuss what had happened and what my point was, not one person in that living room, which had numerous individuals allegedly in support of outing the truth of 9/11, either jumped to my defense and tried to mediate inside (which I am always amenable to after my passions rise a bit, which they are sometimes wont to do despite my desires to stay cool), or at least ask, in the moment, Blumenthal to be fair and not slander the entirety of the 9/11 truth movement if not deal with the hard facts themselves. He was the leader who had the book to sell and no passionate 'disrupter' had any valid reason to ask a rhetorically tough question or, get offended after the bookman had 'answered' by slandering a whole group of people, and demand a clarification on the matter.

After leaving, I asked the homeowner whether it would be ok if i stuck around until the event ended so Blumenthal and I could talk about our disagreement, since it was ending in about half an hour or so. He said he could not speak on behalf of Blumenthal but that it was fine with him if I wanted to come back to the front of his house towards the end of the event. I did, but somehow I missed Blumenthal. Many people coming out expressed sympathy both for what I said and for how I had been ostracized in a manner. Others, were quite snooty. The homeowner and I had some intense exchanges and debates with some advice coming from the more established older man to the uppity younger man. I appreciated that he was very honest about how perceived power dynamics played an important role in exchanges like this, where Blumenthal had earned his respect and clout by writing his book and doing the circuit, and I was just some nobody that gave him no reason to listen seriously to anything I had to say. The exchange between us was raw but deep as we called out what we perceived to be each others' weaknesses and blindspots. It was an interesting, but semi-painful, evening of psychological revelation for me both about myself and about the 'scene.'

-more on my experience with Blumenthal, or my non-experience of Blumenthal later...

On different reactions from the Left around 9/11 and gate-keeping see:
-"Breakfast with Peter Phillips- Media Gate-keeper Constipation & the Solution to the Power Elite"-
-"Amy Goodman questioned about 911"-
-"Chris Hedges "was there" and saw Building 7 "go down" and "it does" look like a controlled demolition, but he's not sure it was."-

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

Thank You

You are a very brave person. It takes some serious cojones to stand as a lightening rod in a room of sheeple and speak the truth to power.


This is good folks

This is an in-depth analysis of the modern state and the exercise of power behind the scenes. The speech is also an important historic document. Given in 1993 it issues a warning of the use of deception to justify going to war. The speech also explains the expansion of the deregulated free market that would lead to a financial crisis as we see it today.

The speech on Conspiracy and Class Power was lost for several years and only recently discovered in the collection of a listener in Seattle. Michael Parenti spoke before an overflow audience in Berkeley, CA. Michael Parenti is an internationally known author and lecturer. He received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale in 1962 and is one of the nation's leading progressive political thinkers. His highly informative and entertaining books and talks have reached a wide range of audiences in North America and abroad. His books include Democracy for the Few, Superpatriotism, The Assassination of Julius Caesar, History as Mystery, and Contrary Notions.

Has Parenti come out for 9-11 truth?

Has Parenti made a definite statement regarding 9-11 truth, or is he still sitting on the fence? I'm not quite clear on where he stands.

I can't say I know him that well, but................

he seems locked in with Chomsky, who has disappointed the whole world of people who really care about reality and evidence.
It is such a shock that these people would abandon the search for truth as they have, probably because of the Jewish connection, although I really can't say why they have. I don't have any other reason why. I've thought this through and through. The reasons for their avoidance of seeking the truth in this are quite hidden from us. I doubt that Chomsky is in any way on the dole from the big corporations. What else could it be? Senility? No...............I've seen him lately in action.
What IS IT?????????

Parenti signed the 2004 Truth Statement

that was circulated after the Commission cover up report was released

A good person to ask about this

A good person to ask about this (if you can find his contact info?) would be Barrie Zwicker. Didn't Parenti write the preface or some favorable commentary for 'Towers of Deception'?

I know--Zinn also was quoted on the jacket of 'The New Pearl Harbor,' and we see what's happened to him. Still, I'd like to hear any update on Parenti if there is any.


Parenti will appear in my and Gregg Roberts film about deception and 9-11

He agreed to the interview knowing full well where I stand on 9-11.


Goodman may not have another source of income but she should quit her job anyway if she's a decent person. Moore and Huffington don't need any money, so it's bizarre they still refuse to give in to 9/11 truth.

It's all about FEAR

Real Fear for their lives and careers and family. Why is it so hard to understand? Our politicians, journalists, college professors, military people, FBI agents you name it they are AFRAID. If the powers that be can collapse buildings on people in Oklahoma and NYC and send Anthrax thru the mail why wouldn't these people turn away from the issue. They know the truth, the bigger truth and they are Worried! As are we all. This is a war and we all know who our real heroes are and aren't. Let's stop pretending people like Chomsky and Goodman and so many others are going to lead our troops. They will only come on board when and if we start winning the war and while many of them may be secretly hoping for us, they're sure not betting on our side. That's what makes each of us honestly in this movement including those with different views and opinions on specifics bonded together as patriots for our Republic and defenders of Justice.

Oh and I would like to add that there are people who know the truth and are in agreement with the perps that this is what is needed in our world and let us not fail to recognize these folks as our true enemies in this war.

I hate even to write this thought but,

frankly, I've been surprised that Sibel Edmonds is "with us."

Clearly, the relieving news is that she is, and now having gone on record and continuing to speak out, I hope that means she always will be.

It is almost ironic that Chomsky wrote:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

It was a big shock to me to discover early on after 9/11 how many of my "progressive" friends were unwilling to even discuss the evidence regarding what happened on 9/11. "I don't believe in conspiracy theories," was and remains a near unanimous "mantra". Now, surely not all these people are on the CIA's payroll. I've maintained all along that the problem is predominantly psychological -- it is fear: People don't want to believe that we're so far gone that something like this can be done to us, that treason and mass murder can be conducted in broad daylight, and that it can be completely gotten away with. They grasp at straws: "It would take too many people," "surely someone would come forward," "they couldn't keep something that big secret," "They're evil but they're not that evil!" And so on. These are direct quotes from people whose political points of view are way left of center.

People who hold such attitudes aren't interested in "evidence" no matter who it comes from. They've "made up their minds" already and reinforce not only "the system" external to themselves, but their already established inner systems of belief. (I see much the same thing going on within the 9/11 community in regards to the evidence at the Pentagon, by the way).

My point is that "fear" IS the driving force behind such attitudes -- regardless whether one is on a "pay roll" or not, regardless whether one is under assumed or direct threat. (All we need do is look at what happened to many of the progressive leaders of the 1960s to know that such threats are real.) It takes a lot of courage to go up against the "limits put on the range of debate," to risk not only ostracism and marginalization but to risk dealing with a deep truth that requires courage and does NOT have an "easy" answer. If the problem is the system itself then piecemeal "solutions" are nothing but band-aids that do nothing to address the real, fundamental problem. Worse, when it comes to something as big and traumatic as 9/11 is/was for the American psyche, it requires that one admit to one's self that one's fundamental understanding of what the system is and how it actually operates in terms of manipulating our perceptions, including our strategies for change, is pervasive, deeply rooted in the culture (such as the right/left paradigm) and ultimately requires a fundamental change in the way one understands one's self. Those of us who have made "the paranoid shift" (see my post below) already understand that, although we need to keep the pressure on at every level of social organization, the fundamental problem IS the system and this can not be changed satisfactorily until the full depth of that system is laid bare for all to see.

Finally, what is needed is genuine hope. It wasn't by accident that Obama's primary appeal was "hope you can believe in." People need to believe that there are genuine solutions to the real problems they face -- without that one has to ask, why bother? 'Things are bad but they could get worse, even out of control.' This is a criticism I make of many such as Alex Jones who point to the 'cause' but do not give a clear alternative. It isn't enough to talk about the NWO agenda and what have you, what is needed is genuine strategies and alternatives that take into account the complexities of living in a post-industrial, highly technological world.

I think 9/11 Truth has come a long way, especially since 2006. But it is clear we're entering a new phase where any hope of "a new investigation" is becoming increasingly unlikely even in the minds of those who (naïvely, IMO) hoped that such a thing was possible. I've never believed "the system" could or would allow itself to be used for this purpose. Calling for "a new investigation" has been a good way to entice some to look at the evidence but we need to move beyond it now because, absent "the system," the investigation has been and continues to be on-going. The "system" did not and will not investigate 9/11 and what has emerged in its place is something completely new (in my experience): A group of loosely nit individuals who feel the direct personal need to confront the tyranny of lies that surrounds and permeates us.We have solid evidence that these lies exist, that the system itself perpetuates them, that, indeed, "the system" is itself a kind of "grand lie" within which we are all trapped.

The power that lies have to control us ends when we see them for what they are and this is what "the system" fears the most. The story that "the system" told us about 9/11 was a lie -- an obvious and easily provable one -- but it was only one lie in a tapestry of lies in which we participate day in and day out. Now something new is required of us and that is to find not only the truth of 9/11 but the truth of the whole system of lies within which we find ourselves. It is precisely this kind of shift in awareness and understanding that can redefine an entire civilization. If this is not a turning point in human history (and I believe it is) then there will be no future history worth talking about.

I remember when........

The first few people mentioned to me that 911 was an inside novice to conspiracy theories but I still told them to back off and not go there............which they did........and then when I finally did check things out for myself .......WOW................OH MY! And for the first few days I didn't say ANYTHING to ANYBODY because frankly I was really SCARED........when I finally had the courage to whisper to some of my friends who were miles ahead I realized that things for me were never going to be the same again. At that time I wasn't even sure I wanted my family to know.....not because they wouldn't believe me but because the truth was so ugly and to be honest I was afraid..........for myself and them.........why wouldn't we be afraid.............So it's not that these folks haven't checked it out for themselves they know the truth and either they have been compromised or they are AFRAID and not without good cause. Everyone has a right to be afraid and some may even know more than we know and may believe it's best for us all not to go there etc. What's it like to have anthrax in your mail and your staff dying? I am encouraged by the brave people in this movement, I believe most people in our Government and police departments, the FBI etc are honest folks with patriotic beliefs. I believe that 911 is a move on the chess board in a game that has been going on for a very long time played by patient and dangerous people. Our real hope is in numbers and that's why the internet is our best weapon, this is where we have connected and where our leaders have come from and our movement really exists. It is also where the gameplan was weak as played by our masters. But as I have said time is not on our side because as more and more time passes people care less and less. Sure the grassy knoll was never investigated, the gulf of Tonkin was a lie but what's getting done about it? My hope is that we can get a break from someone on the inside who can deliver a real smoking gun before too much more time goes by. But everyday more people wake up and many of the younger generation who are internet savvy already know the truth so who knows...

Two points:

1. We DO have a true real smoking gun............the nanothermite in the dust samples.

2. It is understandable that many journalists would feel some fear in presenting 9/11 lies and contradictions by the government. But that doesn't explain it all. We have many people in the 9/11 movement that are people with a lot to lose, and yet they stand up and are working to spread the truth. It is too suspicious that virtually the entire alternative media doesn't have one mouthpiece breaking the silence about 9/11. There is more going on than just a generaly scary feeling about exposing 9/11. There is a system there somewhere.

Thanks for your post, though. I liked it.

Don't forget Project Censored

they have consistently covered 9/11 and have an essay that discussed Left gatekeeper phenomenon. Peter Phillips the founder and former director has a recent essay that describes the US as having a "truth emergency".

they have consistently covered 9/11?

Until this year when they baited us with "Thermitic material" then switched and omitted it completely from their most censored stories. Someone had a talk with them.


Peter Philips and Project Censored say what they think we want to hear. Check out the Top 25 Censored stories for 2010:

Not a peep about Harritt, Ryan's identification of nanothermite. Not a peep about Richard Gage and AE911 Truth.
There is token (and buried) mention of it in their book, but given the shattering nature of these revelations, PC has failed to shine light where it is needed most.

painter, great post

really enjoyed reading your post, brother (or sister)

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -

It --> is <-- fear.

If you break anything down to its very lowest level, there ARE only two things operating in the world: Love and Fear.


The title character of the film 'Donnie Darko' considered such a worldview to be a gross oversimplification, and I'm 'afraid' I do as well.

The two do seem to be antagonists, though. The stronger love is, the more fear is weakened.

The root of the word 'courage' is the Latin word for 'heart'--so it has long been understood this quality has something in common with love.

Thank you for this. You've brought up very important points

I, too, have wondered for a very long time why ALL of the alternative successful media sites have purposely censored all information about the contradictions and obvious lie about 9/11. You've got just about the same list as I have, but don't forget Joshua Holland, who is a senior writer and editor at Alternet, who has written several scathing insulting articles about 9/11, and has been rude to me and others in the comments sections. He is, I feel the reason I and others are banned because of our mentioning of 9/11.
Another is Justin Raimondo, who very early on came on strong about links between the Mossad and Israel and 9/11, even writing a book about it soon after 9/11. And more info about the lies of 9/11. Bizarre. He stopped all mentions about 9/11, and even wrote some insulting comments about the 9/11 movement in several articles.
This is crazy. How has (someone, some group) gotten to all of them?

Yet this subject has been largely dismissed by the bigger names in the 9/11 movement. I mentioned it one time on the 911truth telephone conversation with some of the bigger organizers, and what I got back was that we don't want to go there..............we don't want to aggravate those who are most likely on our side. I sort of understood that then, but after years of NO stories on 9/11 truth from any of these venues, and even mockery and censorship and banning, I realize that the alternative progressive media is our greatest enemy. We will NEVER move on and get even near the mainstream America while these "journalists" keep our story out of the news.

How many decades before Amy and Justin and Joshua and the rest decide they can mention that the 9/11 official story just isn't quite right?

I call this treason.

Call for action on the left adversaries

So pleased to see truthers raise this problem as a question rather than pretend to be sure they know why.

Please consider working with me on my effort described at There I warn I will do civil disobedience against the left. I went to vers la verite in Paris and the 6th annual Gandhi King conference in Memphis to put out this intention.

I believe our best tack is to approach those dedicated to fighting racism, especially African Americans. I made great connections in Memphis.

Here's the argument, the success of 911truth would weaken the reason for war in the middle east by lessening hatred of Muslim and Arab people. They'd be welcome to debunk us politely as a family member might want the best for you without agreeing with every twist and turn. They'd support open consideration of our arguments. None of this ignorance is strength foolishness.

I won't approve of other truthers appearing with me in my confrontations if you hate the left adversaries, but we can begin to talk if you have the courage to get in touch. Calling me is best.

Incidentally, I've seen David Swanson mellow about us a little.

In general, its just narrowmindedness for most of these folks.

I did Chomsky's political course 4 times in the early 70's. My SPECULATION is that his resistance to 911 truth comes from his support for the official story about JFK. In turn, his position on JFK has to do with his disgust with mystical support for politicians. Mystical support for pols is an important element in fascism. Camelot is an example. Chomsky has lived in Massachusetts for OVER 50 years. JFK is a diety in the Bay State.

I consider Chomsky a bigger problem than any left adversaries because he has earned the love and respect of so many people. He couldn't be paid off because he sells too many books. He told us VERY often that we shouldn't just agree with him, instead doing our own investigation(said decades before 911.)
He's treated as a diety by so many in spite of all his efforts to the contrary. He doesn't seem to be able to face the irrational faith people have in his every word.

What's more important than figuring out why is to lovingly confront the left. Join me.

David Slesinger

The comments at the Nation are fascinating

Thanks for the link

I added my two cents.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow


The user going by "MarkOller" clearly fits the role of a psyop, IMO. He is engaging in a technique i've heard referred to as "muddying the waters" (or similar) by introducing doubt and ridicule against legitimate lines of inquiry. The obvious steps:

1. pushing hypotheses that are clearly outrageous, undocumented, and unscientific (small nukes, no planes),

2. publishing a large volume of posts to completely misdirect the conversation into a minutia of nonsense and bickering,

3. discredit the targets by associating the movement with known racists, xenophobes, or other anti-social people or ideas (i.e. only Zionists are guilty of this)

A lot of people unwilling to invest in their own research will be repulsed by this level of "debate", ad hominem attacks, and the lack of some kind of clear line of logical thinking.

It's clear as day when you see the pattern. I know others have written about this here, but I'd be curious to know if anyone has committed a website to researching and documenting this behavior. It would sure be nice to see the server logs for these kinds of posts and do some some standard route traces against them to see where they originate from. If this kind of work was farmed out randomly, it's possible we might see some patterns, unless they were smart about it. ;)

I agree

I was going to comment to this effect.

Oller's over the top

many articles documenting disruption techniques, as well occurrences in the movement, at these sites:

Agreed...but, uh... that's not just "muddying the waters."

That's poop in the pool.

Everybody out of the water

Needs to be drained and the walls need to be scrubbed.

A call to action this Sunday

Although it seems as though we most times run into a brick wall with the MSM. We still must continue to get through to them. Tomorrow (Sunday, Oct. 25) we have another opportunity. Congressman Dennis Kucinich will be on C-SPAN's Washington Journal show to discuss healthcare. Why not call in and then ask 9/11 questions too?

Dennis Kucinich on C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Sunday, October 25, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. ET

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow


"Goodman is about as likely to be on the payroll of the CIA as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky."

I agree, but don't consider it particularly unlikely in regard to any of the three. I respect what they have done and continue to do, but would surprised if they weren't pressured into keeping shut on various issues, and possibly paid to seal the deal. In particular, Amy Goodman is visibly afraid of discussing the facts of 9/11:

It seems like calling for a new investigation is all she is allowed to say.


It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you.

Zinn has termed getting to the bottom of 911 a waste of time

and Chomsky a priori dismisses any government involvement as extremely unlikely

The real headline should read: "Goodman is about as likely to be an apologist for the official story of 911 as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky." So what is going on here to sideline the three of them? I'm glad someone on the Pacifica board is trying to ask the question.

Right PD. I lost respect for the Nation with its putrid avoidance of 911 scholarship. I canceled my subscription a long time ago.The Truth movement has matured. Project censored is 100% on board. We have impeccable science. Shame on Amy and her anti-911 research cohorts.

I've stopped support also

of several alternative media venues.
It is an absurdity to have completely avoided 9/11 truth for all these years.
All of these venues have purposely censored 9/11 truth.

But where to go?
Yes, there are some good 9/11 sites, like this one.
But the trouble is, we are preaching to the choir.
We need to get the truth out to AT LEAST the progressives, the leftists, the liberals.
But Amy and Justin and Joshua Holland and many others in the alternative media are working with SOMEBODY to censor all of it.
It has ruined our chances of ever getting our message to the American people.


Well I wouldn't go so far to say that the left gatekeepers ruined our chances. It's a set back, sure. We have to keep finding innovative ways to get the message out, like WeAreChange. We need plays, films, dramatic pieces and creative guerrilla stunts instead.

I have watched as so many people, great people,

have done wonderful things with plays, films, dramatic pieces, guerrilla stunts, and of course the research, to get the word out.
I'm sorry to say, though, but it is only the choir that sees this preaching.
The stuff just doesn't get out to the general public.
But it would get exposed, to at least progressives and liberals, if the alternative media would show these things.
But they don't.
They are the only chance to get the material out there to more than just a few people.
And that is why I say they have destroyed the 9/11 movement, up to this point so far.
They need to be held responsible for censoring the most important information of our time.
And again, I say, "criminal!"

hope for 9/11 truth at pacifica?

if amy goodman is indeed a leftwing gatekeeper, and even if she is not, it is perhaps good news that pacifica has passed a resolution to see if the u.s. government “has been funneling money to Goodman to cover up ‘the truth’ about 9/11,” as the article says. or is this all just another gatekeeping ploy? guess we’ll have to wait and see.

assessing goodman’s role vis-a-vis 9/11 is a challenge. in one sense she has not done nearly enough. but in an objective sense, is it not fair to say that goodman has provided more significant coverage of 9/11 than most mainstream media? for example, goodman did in fact have david ray griffin on her show (as the article points out) for a meaningful segment, see and goodman has also given significant time to the “loose change” filmmakers,

while covering 9/11, however, goodman has allowed “equal time” (in the old “fairness doctrine” sense) to the 9/11 debunko artists, an approach she usually does not employ with pet guests howard zinn and noam chomsky. see for example and maybe that is a tip-off as to her true leftwing gatekeeper role—to allow just enough “civil debate” on 9/11 to pacify her fan base and fend off criticism that she is just as bad as the mainstream media, while ultimately keeping the lid on 9/11.

Just compare the number of times

Amy has had 9/11 truth on her show (barely once) with how often the issues of torture, wire tapping, the patriot act, Halliburton, WMD lies, and the rest have been presented on her show.
Thousands of shows and articles on Democracy Now about all of these other issues, ALL of them a result in part from 9/11. And yet the contradictions and glaring lies of the official 9/11 story is censored from her show.

The evidence became too strong maybe?

Ever since NIST came published its final report on WTC7 and admitted freefall for 2.25secs/105ft, I have seen very little in the way of remarks from any of the known "lefties". Now that freefall is official, there is no defending the official story anymore and I think they know it. Any discussion they may have on 9/11 now risks they will be called out on it (IMO). No one needs to be an engineer to realize 105ft freefall could never be a natural event. I have memorized the paragraph myself and have it ready for any discussion. Now that DRG's book is out regarding WTC7, everyone one should be buying a copy to get it to the best seller list. That will carry on far far far far more than The Shell Game fiasco.

Together in truth


"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 2002


Mrs. Goodmann, name me ONE engineer outside NIST who believes that "thermal expansion"
causes a building to collaps in a manner indistinguishable from a controlled demolition ..
Mrs. Goodmann, you SAW THIS WITH YOUR OWN EYES, yet the silence is deafening .
What do you believe, what they tell you to believe or your own lying eyes ?

And just to make the story easy for Mrs Goodmann : Why don't you call up this man ?

" Justice for Barry Jennings "


Thanks for that, I've never seen it before.

This chart is suggestive, but sketchy

What year or years does it cover? Also, what percentages of the budgets of the various recipients do the the various figures given constitute of the total?

Paranoid Shift:

This is an excerpt from Michael Hasty's "Paranoid Shift," written in 2004:

Perhaps the biggest hidden reason people don’t make the paranoid shift is that knowledge brings responsibility. If we acknowledge that an inner circle of ruling elites controls the world’s most powerful military and intelligence system; controls the international banking system; controls the most effective and far-reaching propaganda network in history; controls all three branches of government in the world’s only superpower; and controls the technology that counts the people’s votes, we might be then forced to conclude that we don’t live in a particularly democratic system. And then voting and making contributions and trying to stay informed wouldn’t be enough. Because then the duty of citizenship would go beyond serving as a loyal opposition, to serving as a “loyal resistance” -- like the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, except that in this case the resistance to fascism would be on the side of the national ideals, rather than the government; and a violent insurgency would not only play into the empire’s hands, it would be doomed from the start.

Forming a nonviolent resistance movement, on the other hand, might mean forsaking some middle class comfort, and it would doubtless require a lot of work. It would mean educating ourselves and others about the nature of the truly apocalyptic beast we face. It would mean organizing at the most basic neighborhood level, face to face. (We cannot put our trust in the empire’s technology.) It would mean reaching across turf lines and transcending single-issue politics, forming coalitions and sharing data and names and strategies, and applying energy at every level of government, local to global. It would also probably mean civil disobedience, at a time when the Bush regime is starting to classify that action as “terrorism.” In the end, it may mean organizing a progressive confederacy to govern ourselves, just as our revolutionary founders formed the Continental Congress. It would mean being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves.

It would be a lot of work. It would also require critical mass. A paradigm shift.

Civil Informationing is a neighborhood...

...approach to affect change.

I had not read Hasty's piece before and, in working the public in the streets every week, I can "see and sense" that in fact, citizen's indeed are uncomfortable with having the TRUTH behind 9/11 [and many other critical isues] placed into thier laps...because...most folks are actually good and responsible people...and most "informed" people DO feel that they SHOULD do something about these issues.

But, if they ignore becoming informed about what's going on all around them, then they will not be responsible for NOT doing something that they should be doing. I call it being "comfortably numb"...[if I may borrow a well known phrase]. And for those with gray hair who at one time were aware and "on-board" with the leaps ahead which were germinated in the 60s but are no longer involved, well, they are now deeply engaged in "The Great Gray Nap".

These two categorizations are actually the same thing...I just hold higher expectations towards the 60s types who actaully were engaged in making progress at one time in their lives.

It would be nice IF we could reawaken this demographic because they are still great folks...who have "left the game" for others to battle while they watch from the sidelines.

The principal structure of Civil Informationing is that it takes place, person-to-person, in one's own town and city...the ONLY places where any revolution will eventually come from. In other words, we need to BECOME OUR OWN MEDIA...and educators and this is quite possible with the internet...and appropriate DVDs. Mass marches need to be replaced by thousands of simple, inexpensive, respectful, and legal coordinated public actions all over the country.

The problem is getting those NOT yet "plugged in" to become plugged into the webworld and the tens of thousands of civil-political-economic online organizations that are out here...and that can only be acheived by face-to-face interactions giving out websites, links, DVDs...and reasons to get re-involved. As this happens more and more, the online organizations will soon be represented in the very towns and cities in which Civil Informationing has been an ongoing and very visible process for a while....and a critical mass will eventually evolve.

When I do CI-ing, I carry the messages of:

...9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE...for which I constantly get "thanked for doing"...

...and which will allow The Great Gray Nappers and the now emasculated people of peace some viable cover for their embarrassment of three decades of being misled by their "leaders?" and thusly becoming ineffective...or for napping!

...becoming more informed about ANYTHING that they find important to them...and...GETTING MORE INVOLVED and STAYING something to do with their own self-governances...

...supporting voting reforms needing to be made to ensure that citizen's paper ballots are counted by citizens...

The base line of this thread discusses the media...corporate and independent?...well, I suggest that the truth here settles in with an understanding that Zionism is the single biggest barrier through which 9/11 Truth and many, many other political-social-war and peace "truths" must pass. Controlling mass perceptions is the most effective way at telling, or not telling certain "stories" that indeed could make critical impacts to self-governances and the directions and characters of nations. And these very sophisticated and variable "controls and influences" happen in clearly coordinated forms from LA to WDC and NYC...and in a few more critical places in between and beyond..,.I think that CNN is still in Atlanta?

9/11 Truth is a PEOPLE's movement...and Civil Informationing is people informing people. I see no other viable way to make changes until we reach critical mass at which time TRUTH SEEKING will become "the thing to do".

The most encouraging sign that I run into on the streets now is the rejection of the "party system" and the lack of biases or hatreds of "others" carried by the 14-26 year olds out there. They are "plugged in"...see far more than they share with their gary haired elders...and are a great foundation upon which to build the revolution of the mind so desparately needed.

In my 40 years of activism I feel the best now than I ever have about the possibility of reaching critical mass for making some important changes. If somehow, we can get the youth to awaken The Great Gray Nappers and get them into the webworld, reaching critical mass will not be that long off.

This means that we need to go AROUND all the media gatekeepers instead of trying to change them.

So, I suggest that the 9/11TM begin performing CI at high schools and at high school and college sporting events and the like. Just "be there" and be prepared to hand out some information. It takes only a few hours per month. And, I believe that the best people to "awaken" The Great Gray Nappers are children and grandchildren...and not us. Lets work the room from the younger upwards.

Read more about my concept of CI...Civil Informationing at:

Its 2009 and NOT 1969...and once the garyhairs realize this, things will get very, very positive around here.

In the end, regardless of whom we inform about what, we need to offer simple and easy ways to accomplish "things". The average citizens are quite overmatched and need simple steps to take in order to help out...and they DO want to make changes and to help out. They just feel unempowered right now.

Love, Peace and Progress...with:


9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA


That's really an amazing article.

I like your posts a lot. They have a very unique tenor.


To that person who confronted Blumenthal --

Don't take the bait. Don't press "truth" or "9/11" or "conspiracy" or obvious buzzwords that have been demonized. Go around the prepared offensive with a flanking question or two. I started a list of such questions:

What you could have said to Blumenthal, for example, is:

"Do you deny that the US has supported terrorism extensively, in its foreign policy?"

"Why are you ooposed to a new investigation that can't be tainted by the Bush administration's meddling?"

"Are you aware of the 6000 family members who sued the Saudi government over their sponsorship of some of the 9/11 hijackers?"

"Waht about Thomas Kean and Hamilton admitting that the 9/11 Commission was set up to fail? Doesn't that bother you there is an obvious cover up?"

Many, many lines of inquiry could have put the onus back onto that asshole. Think strategically.

The NATION has long been a CIA tainted propaganda rag. I have no confidence in anything printed there, at all. One of hteir senior editors (MAX HOLLAND) was simultaneously an editor at the CIA's own official website where he creates fraudulent fiction trying to tie the KGB to the JFK assassination. Such an obvious tie in to psyops and propaganda is seldom seen.

Consider the source.

Amy Goodman may very well be compromised, but not necessarily by direct bribes. It gets murky and complicated in the world of covert propaganda. Judge her by her actions.

She set up Griffin with a hit artist to blindside him instead of giving a respectful, informative interview.

She wants to know about civil engineers who agree with the controlled demolition hypothesis? There are hundreds, now. No follow up? No chancce to set the record straight?

No time to revisit the most pivotal event of hte century, the cassus belli for 1.5 million deaths so far?

Judge Amy Goodman by her actions.



Great suggestions John. I'd also point to the nano-thermite paper and the commentary on WTC 7 by Kevin Ryan and David Chandler, not to mention the 955 licensed architects and engineers from AE911Truth, led by 20 year AIA architect, Richard Gage.


... But Johndoraeme's advice, to parry with a very tough question, is really good.

Comfort Zones....

There is one reason for the "Left gatekeepers'" reticence re. 9/11 that seldom gets mentioned, and I imagine this is because of one particularly powerful and coercive aspect of modern political correctness.



This fact, for many, is a huge, massive, "don't even think about it", type of problem... the sort of thing that will cause people to stand there with their fingers in their ears, yelling "Shut up, I do NOT want to hear about it, true or otherwise". This is possibly a reason (amongst others of course) for the blanket censorship of 9/11 on many "Left Gatekeeper" websites.

Right from the time the North Tower came down, the media, the Bush Administration and the powers-that-be in general pinned the blame upon "brown skinned people of the Islamic faith" without any proof or credible evidence. I too, believed the pundits and commentators, alongside the huge majority of the public who easily went along with it; it mapped neatly onto our general pre-programmed comfort zone. We here in the West have been battered by the media for years and years that "all Muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists" and are so used to hearing about Islam and Muslims in a negative sense, and we have collectively developed a sense of familiarity and ease in being able to identify the "boogeymen in the closet", as always being "those bearded guys with funny headgear who don't have the same God as we do and all they think about is killing innocent people".

To put it an alternative way, 9/11 Truth is a big threat to those who regard the world's Muslim community as the arch-enemy, those who have authorized the "war on terrorism", or those who hold hatred towards people of that religious faith, or middle eastern ethnotypes. This brings up an obvious question: Who regards Arabs and Muslims as "the great evil, the permanent enemy"? In amongst the list of those who hold such sentiments, is the "Big UH-OH"... which in turn leads us to an area which is, and remains out of bounds, a taboo, even in the greater 9/11 Truth community, for a set of obvious, strategic reasons.

To offer a personal illustration of such, I shall recall a quite recent and eye-opening experience:

I attended a talk a couple of years ago by a leading light of the 9/11 Truth Movement, for whom I have nothing but the utmost admiration and respect. After the sell-out lecture (which was concise, eloquent, hardhitting and left me with *zero* doubt that 9/11 was an inside job), I waited in a long line at the table as he signed books for audience members. By chance, only a few hours previously, I had watched a clip (on youtube) featuring the infamous "dancing, high-fiving Mossad agents", being interviewed on an Israeli chat show. These guys freely admitted (in Hebrew, with English subtitles), in a public setting, that they had "been sent by their bosses to document the event", by videotaping the attack as it happened. So, as I waited in line, a question formulated itself in my mind: "These agents, on their own admission, had advance knowledge of 9/11, and were thus guilty of 'accessory before the fact' to the worst crime in American history. They were in FBI custody but were let go without charge, and quietly sent home to Israel, and we were told via a government spokesman that evidence linking these people with 9/11 is classified....."

Eventually it was my turn to greet the speaker, and I posed my question. He looked back at me with a slightly bemused expression of "why are you asking ME this?", and "what do expect me to do about it"? In other words, "if I follow this or any similar line of inquiry, I shall be name-called and denounced as a "Jew Hater" or "Holocaust Denier" (alongside Eric Hufschmid and others), and thus trash my reputation? I fully understand his reticence to follow this, or any similar leads that point towards "The Great Unmentionable". It is like the kiss of death.

I personally have no bias towards or against any racial or religious group, that I am aware of. But (largely) because of the Holocaust, we have been taught to avoid any "association with bad things" regarding how we look at history's most persecuted people. Such an attitude, with all good intent I am sure, has become part of our culture.

As to how this attitude translates into looking at, and investigating 9/11, it appears that we have a massive problem of a circular nature on our hands, a deeply embedded roadblock, that we are enforcing and strengthening, much of the time without even realizing it. And worst of all, there is nothing we can do about it, unless we transgress the limits of polite or acceptable areas of inquiry. If we cannot look at and examine *EVERY* aspect of 9/11, then there will always be parts of the puzzle which will remain unsolved, as as such, we face the probability of going to our graves without ever seeing justice being served.

If only that were the only problem

I find your points valid; but what you're talking about here--wrong and difficult though it is--might be termed a kind of 'rational' resistance to 9/11 truth, in that, politcally, there is a kind of tactical 'rationale' behind it. It makes political sense for Zionists to be resistant to any change in the storyline of 9/11 that would shift the blame away from purported opponents of Israel. But what has been talked about for much of this thread is resistance of a different, more peculiar and--in my experience--acutely maddening sort. The kind where different kinds of factors--not necessarily rational motives (like those touched on in some of the comments above)--need to be taken into account. The kind that comes from the very sources that should very much welcome seeing the blame shifted away from Muslims and Arabs and Central Asians.

The kind of resistance, for example, that comes from sources like Counterpunch and, which routinely criticize Israeli policy, and the influence of the Israeli lobby in the US, and Zionist ideology in general. Or from antiwar activists who are OPPOSED to the wars that Zionists generally DO support; who opposed the sanctions that resulted in so many deaths for the Iraqi people during the '90s; and who, in more recent years, support antiwar actions, and try to make others aware of the horrible effects of war on the people in the countries that the US has invaded. People who DO feel compassion for the people in those countries.

Sometimes, a different kind of 'political correctness' than the one you describe can rear its ugly head. When truth activists try to point out that the scale of the operation was beyond the capabilty of a loose organization of Muslim guerrillas--and that it instead would be more characteristic of sophisticated intelligence organizations--then we sometimes here the 'racist' charge hurled at us. That's right--try to undermine a storyline which is making racist wars possible, and you might yourself get called a racist (Cockburn of Counterpunch has resorted to this ploy, and I believe Ward Churchill has as well). They promote a kind of perverse view where it is somehow considered non-racist, pro-Muslim, pro-Central Asian to attribute 9/11 to such people. They look at these CIA/ISI (and, yes, possibly Mossad as well) flunkies and perversely pretend to see in them some kind of revolutionary vanguard striking back against 'the Man'--the big, bad, bumbling imperialist power (which is, of course, too 'bumbling' to have carried out the attacks against itself...'Say what? Who's been benefitting from 9/11?.....Oh...well...ummm...we'll be putting a stop to that real soon!; As soon as we get people to stop wasting time with you truthers!').

Listen to some of these reactions, and it's as if they see 9/11 as something to be proud of, something that attests to the capability and resolve of whoever did it--and damned if they are going to shift their view from Third World peoples to western imperialists where this question is concerned!

Then there are those who might not go to this extreme but who, feeling guilty over US foreign policy, saw in 9/11 a kind of comeuppance for the US, and saw in the offical story of 9/11 a valuable lesson which could be used to educate the wider public about the truth of this foreign policy and where it could lead.

This, of course, is the classic 'blow-back' interpretation of 9/11. Many 9/11 truthers once held to this view. David Ray Griffin has more than once described how he once did, and how he gradually came around to understanding how false the 9/11 official story really was/is.

And yet, and yet...there remain so many others who remain utterly stuck, like ostriches with their heads in the ground; who seemingly have absorbed none of the information that has come out about 9/11 over the past several years, and who seem determined not ever to absorb any of it.

Infrastructure of "perception controls"...

Just to clarify my own views of why my beliefs are that the greatest force against 9/11Truth hitting the mainstream being "Zionism", let me say that its with a deliberate broad brush and equally deliberate lack of "specifics" that I use to paint this picture. Its obvious to me and my 60 plus years in the USofA that certain elements within our society have been generating and propagating negative stereotypes of the Arab-Muslim world...and to me it started with Walt Disney's cartoon-ish work way back when, and it continues with Hollywood's constant and deliberate association between terrorists and the Arab-Muslim world. This is not by is purposeful. And I argue that one of the main reasons for this is that Israel is fundamentaly surrounded by these Arab-Muslim "terrorists"...or so Zionists would have us all believe.

So, when I use the word Zionism I'm most accurately making note of the infrastructure of perception controls long in use by those who need to have Israel's conduct seen positively and understandibly, while seeing the Arab-Muslim world, most notably Palestine, as being the "evil doers". This is evident and self protective of Israel and Jewish people all around the world. Its actually quite an old story.

The "perception controls" are in movies, TV shows, magazines, lectures, books, news reports, newspaper articles, and on and on and on...its a multi-pronged and very comprehensive effort...again, well designed. So, when a story that might switch perceptions totally upside down such as the "Dancing Israelis" story, or other information connecting Israel-Mossad-American Jews to 9/11, have a chance of doing their truthful work, all elements of the Zionists "perception controls" click into high gear to shut it down.

And THIS is where corporate media and the alleged "independent media are affected by those few folks within those organizations that cleverly carry out the "scrubbing" of anti-Israel stories and the "expansion" of anti-Arab/Muslim stories.

This infrastructure is so well established that it goes on without notice...indeed the only time its noticed is when sories are NOT so "scrubbed" in the favor of Israel or "expanded" in disfavor of the Arab-Muslim world...again most notably-Palestine.

When somebody studies what happened to the peace movements coming out of the 60s, arguably the biggest and loudest movement...but by far the LEAST EFFECTIVE and most marginalized movement within the cluster of progressive start-up movements that were born back then, I will argue that its this same Zionism that cleverly, quietly and persistantly has infiltrated the peace organizations and made sure that the peace movements would NOT be effective at ending wars. This also ties back into a large portion of Israel's economy...making-improving-selling weapons and weapon systems...but moreso, there is one thing that Zionists HAD to make NOT HAPPEN...something that the peace movements HAD to be prevented from accomplishing....

...and that is to PREVENT the US based peace organizations from continuing its opposition to ALL WARS and OCCUPATIONS around the world during the time periods when the USofA was not conducting one of its public wars....

This is just another part of the Zionist "perception control" apparatus because the one most constant- warring-occupying activity that has long been a constant is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Its THIS conflict that needs constant "scrubbing OR expanding" by the Zionist "perception control" apparatus.

Consequently, if the story ever comes out to the average citizen of the USofA about the "Dancing Israelis", and other Israeli connections with the mass murders and attacks on 9/11, then the horse will be WAY out of the barn regarding the many truths regarding Israel's ultimate and powerful role in the conduct of the USofA. And that horse will never make it back into the would be a done deal! why Zionism is the largest blockage to 9/11 Truth coming threatens Israel, and more importantly as one American Jewish fellow pointed out to me in Seattle a few months back, it will expose the exact levels of political-financial-military-foriegn policy "controls" that Israel, AIPAC, and American Jewish people have regarding governing and directing our country.

To Zionists this simply cannot be allowed to happen. And since the events of 9/11/2001 are the most historically and tragically memorable events in most people's minds, having these events of 9/11 being seen as anti-Israel, or pro/nuetral-Arab/Muslim would be an absolute catastrophy for Israel.

Once the truth about Israel's conduct and international political-military influences begins to flow, it will be very hard to stop until ALL the truth is hanging out there on the laundry line.

I suggest that the likes of Goodman, Chomsky and Zinn are well aware of this potential...

Seeking truth is very important...and directing sunshine exposing lies is part of this process.

The 9/11 Truth Movement is facing the veryt same forces that dismembered the peace movements and has managed to get the US government under its tow. very powerful stuff.

9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE...and begin to practice CI...Civil Informationing...both are good ideas.

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Thanks for this post.

You make some really strong points.

I have absolutely nothing objective to base this on but, my gut feeling is that the horse is already on it's way of the barn. ...And it won't be going back in.


Several years back I had a conversation with my youngest brother. He was (still is) thoughtful, intelligent and knew quite a bit about history. I asked him if he knew about the Reichstag fire (started by Hitler, blamed on Polish communists) and if he knew the term "false flag terrorism". He replied Yes on both accounts. I told him that I believed that 9/11 was our Reichstag fire. He refused to believe that and probably to this day disbelieves that we would do that to ourselves. I then asked him to suspend his personal beliefs in this inquiry and again asked him what would happen if it were true that 9/11 was our Reichstag fire. He said that there would be a revolution. I don't know if I believe my brothers answer here. (Americans as we all know are anesthetized by TV, drugs, and gadgets). But if revolution were a possibility, this might be another reason that power structure and the gatekeepers would want to prevent. Our culture is very fragile and becoming more so as we all see around us. The revolution may be inevitable but the gatekeepers are just trying to stave it off as long as possible.

doing their job so that rape and pillage can continue

I really appreciate that discussion that has come forth on this topic. To me this has been the most interesting aspect of the 9/11 the media has worked overtime to keep it from being investigated or discussed. They are part of the system that must be maintained so that the greed, corruption, hegemony, and ignorance can be continued. The rape and pillage of other people (including USA citizens) and the resources of the planet can continue unchecked. This really was moment in time when everything changed. I woke up to the madness, where the blue pill wore off. We are being duped on a massive scale by the media which was supposed to be on our side, the so-called fourth estate. But we have to remember that the media is a huge corporate enterprise with interlacing directorates. Many of the large media houses are also military contractors. They actively keep us uninformed, distracted, titillated or confused. We dare not look for the truth. I so appreciate the comments left behind, because collectively, they paint a pretty accurate picture of the reasons that gatekeepers do what they do.

Funding considerations.
Direct or indirect benefiting from the spoils of empire: money, power, or prestige
Blackmail or direct threats to family or self.
Herd mentality: waiting for Chomsky, Zinn, or Goodman to make it OK to report on.
Fear of being labeled as....[fill in the blank].
Herd mentality: Huffington, Cockburn, Blumenthal etal, set the tone that everyone else follows.

Don't worry, we're on the case....

I gotta say - I just found out that Jones / Gage others - have done ZERO testing for explosives with the WTC dust samples they've had in their possession for 3 years. I was BIG on Jones and supporting the thermite theory --- I always focused on the "3 buildings" and that crime scene...

For those here -- why are they not testing for explosives? there's tons of kits out there to do so... I find it very odd.

Also, that Jones gets comparable CD dust samples from CDI -- controlled demo inc. -- clearly the tasked "clean up crew" for the 9/11 NY crime scene. Again, odd. Clearly CDI knows ALOT - they cleaned it all up!

Actually someone from AE911truth emailed me back when I asked this (Jones did not respond yet) and the reply said " it is high on the list and a priority" -- Huh?

From a guy, me, who pushed Jones' information like no other - free public screenings, reading the papers, etc -- I want to believe here, but to take FEMA/NIST/FBI to task for not testing for explosives and writing in papers that "someone should test" -- WHY would the "911 truth investigators" not test the dust for explosives themselves already?

Not 3 years ago... I'm not aware of any activity or action to do so now either. -- anybody have a take on this or explain why?

How did you first learn

that no explosives testing had been done on the WTC dust, you mention?

What are you talking about?

Have you seen the latest Loose Change film? Jones is on camera at length describing the testing of the WTC dust. What are you talking about?