The 9/11 Truth Gestapo

One of the main reasons which kept me away from the 9/11 Truth movement for 8 years was the tone and tactics of some of the most vocal members of the 9/11T movement. The video below is a perfect example of the kind of tactics these guys use:

Seeing this video made me recall one evening in Melbourne, FL, where I had travelled to listen to Amy Goodman make a presentation. Amy was about halfway through her presentation when some young guy suddenly jumped up and began screaming that "9/11 was an inside job! 9/11 was an inside job!". Amy calmly thanked him for having made his point and asked him to sit down and please let her continue. They guy then got even more hysterical and began yelling at her "why don't you say that 9/11 was an inside job!!!". Amy calmly retorted to him "look, I don't tell you what you have to say, what gives you the right to tell me what I have to say?!". By then, the entire hall was booing and hissing at the screaming truther and it took the campus police to finally get the guy out. And what was the result? The rude and arrogant behavior of that truther turned roughly 300 people completely off the topic of 9/11. I know, I was one of them.

The sad reality that next to such wonderful gentlemen like Richard Gage, Steven Jones and many others, there is a real "9/11 Truth Gestapo" out there which, just like the Saudi or Afghan "mutaween" morals police (The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice) feels that it has the right to hound and harass any and all persons who happen not to endorse the 9/11 Truth movement. This "9/11 Gestapo" has made folks like Amy Goodman, David Rovics and Noam Chomsky the targets of special vitriol since all of them are anti-establishment resisters with a track record of standing up to Uncle Sam which very few of us can match (that all three of them are Jews probably also makes them prime targets for anti-Jewish bigots who think that all Jews must be crypto-Zionists).

I am not sure about Noam Chomsky, but I know for a fact that both Amy Goodman and David Rovics do support a new and independent investigation into the events of September 11. But that is not good enough for the "9/11 Gestapo police"! No, they want *everybody* to already pre-judge the findings of this investigation and, God forbid, anybody would dare to doubt or, even worse, disagree with the *dogma* that "9/11 was in inside job"!

I am absolutely convinced, beyond any doubt, that 9/11 was, indeed, and inside job. And I would be delighted to have Amy Goodman, David Rovics and Noam Chomsky to declare that they came to the same conclusion has I did. But that hardly give me the right to constantly harass them with rude and obnoxious demands that they think just like I do. That kind of 9/11T fascism is not helping the 9/11T movement at all.

Some folks out there seem to like Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura and the rest of the "screaming" truthers a lot. I guess stuff like "Prison Planet" "American conspiracies" or "Infowars" sound great to their ears. To me, this sounds like just another version of the kind of what I call "Texan crap" we had to put up with for 8 years of Dubya. You know, cowboy stuff. The kind which appeals to IQs at, or under, room temperatures.

There is no denying that this, shall we say, "cowboy 9/11" stuff does appeal to some people. And for all my dislike for Alex Jones (he does even sound and look like Dubya, no? "Give me a visor!" as Caliendo would say), he has been in the 9/11T movement a heck of a lot longer that yours truly. So I have to set some of my own preferences aside and not begin doing exactly what this "9/11 Gestapo" does: to assume that everybody who does not agree with me is therefore evil, dishonest or some kind of 'gatekeeper'. But not making assumptions about the motives of these people, I still have the right to clearly state that I believe that their demeanor, tactics and mindset alienate the right side of the Bell Curve and that is very bad for the entire 9/11 Truth movement.

The idea that we will all walk to the 9/11 truth in lockstep is morally wrong and practically misguided. The truth about 9/11, as any other truth, will only come out of a free and contradictory discussion, in which many different views will be heard and judged on their merits. In the meanwhile, as a very practical matter, we should consider everybody who agrees to a new investigation into 9/11 as an ally and a person we should express thanks and gratitude to, and not a target for scorn or harassment.

The Saker

(also published on my other blog:

This sort of aggressive in

This sort of aggressive in your face tactics are not acceptable, though it is understandable with consideration at the levels of frustration. It's debatable if this is helpful or not. I think not.

I agree that the level of

I agree that the level of frustration of many is something which I should take into account, first and foremost since I am a newcomer to the 9/11 Truth movement and I did not have to put up with all the insults that many longtime truther had to suffer for all these years. I just think that "having Amy Goodman on the run" is not the kind of message or attititude which helps the 9/11 movement. I think that this frustration should be channelled towards going after those who oppose a new investigation, and even then we should always be polite, logical and refer to well established facts (the nanothermite in the WTC dust being probably the strongest one we have)

the fact is ...

9/11 truth advocates have been on the receiving end of abuse, belligerence and contempt from government and mainstream media commentators for the past eight years ... 9/11 truth activists have tried every which way to raise the issue despite a constant stream of threats and intimidation ... 9/11 truth activists are well aware of the difficulties they face in trying to raise public consciousness about the issues involved and they have been creative, determined and untiring in their efforts to expose the truth.

Now obviously, not everyone is going to agree with every method tried, but from the truth activist's point of view, every avenue must be explored or examined for its effectiveness... the task is so monumental, so difficult, and very often so unrewarding, but the goal remains imperative, and every effort counts.

While I generally agree with the proposition that "in your face" agitation or aggression can prove unhelpful, even counterproductive at times, I do not think that means all such methods should be eschewed ... have you heard of the "good cop / bad cop" approach, a technique whereby the "bad cop" acts to shock or intimidate so that "good cop" can then by contrast appear kind and reasonable. This technique is often used by law enforcement and others because it is effective at breaking down resistance in the target audience.

9/11 truth faces enormous resistance from many angles and has yet to make significant impact on mainstream consciousness. I suggest we are not yet at the point where we can say with certainty that any particular approach has been more effective than another. For this reason I see no need to limit the scope of tactics employed by 9/11 truth activists on the basis of perceptions about what works and what doesn't.

I agree that incivility does not help our movement,

especially at this point in its growth when we really need to reach out to those terrified of the underlying implications of 9/11 truth.

And harassing people is not the way to create the world we want to live in, imo. At least, not the world I want to live in, that's for sure.

One does have to wonder why someone like Amy Goodman would not have people like Nafeez Ahmed or Michel Chossudovsky on her show to present an alternative analysis of the war on terror. Her guests all seem to accept the standard construct of radical Islamic terrorism and the war on terror as valid.

Given the huge story that 1100+ architects and engineers publicly challenging the NIST reports is, one also has to wonder why the Democracy Now! staff is not finding a way to get Richard Gage on her show.

I don't think this can be attributed only to some rude truthers asking her tough questions, but I do think our persistence with her and other perceived gatekeepers should take on a more civil and respectful tone.

As you pointed out quite well, it is far more important that we are perceived positively by her viewers and that they are encouraged by our demeanor to take a closer look at our arguments and not be instantly repelled by too often boorish behavior.

All that said, we humans are emotional creatures and too often let frustration get the better of us.

We can do better, brothers and sisters, let's win our adversaries over with civil reason and generosity.

We are the leaders we have been waiting for.

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

"why someone like Amy Goodman

"why someone like Amy Goodman would not have people like Nafeez Ahmed or Michel Chossudovsky on her show to present an alternative analysis of the war on terror. Her guests all seem to accept the standard construct of radical Islamic terrorism and the war on terror as valid."

A friend of mine suggested that the reason is that Amy Goodman and others are something like "Chomsky devotees" and since he does not want to even seriously consider the 911T movement's arguments, neither will she (they). Although I do recall seeing an excellent debate between the authors of "Loose Change" and some editors of "Popular Mechanics" on her she (the Popular Mechanics people got crushed the guys who did "Loose Change").

"We are the leaders we have been waiting for."?

You mean - WHERE are the leaders, right? Well, Richard Gage, Steven Jones are doing an excellent job, I think. no?

We are the leaders we have been waiting for.

No, I mean WE are the leaders, because that's the only way we will create the world we want to live in.

We all have to be leaders, including Richard Gage and Steven Jones, of course.

I hope that you and yours are well.

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

I don't follow your argument here

While random miscreants interrupting presentations by screaming an unsubstantiated claims (which you claim to believe yourself yet also call "dogma"?) is obviously counterproductive, that isn't rightly comparable to what is going on in the Amy Goodman video, and neither even come close to supporting the "constantly harass[ing]" you claimed. The WAC crew wait for reasonable moments to ask questions during public gatherings full of exactly that, the only difference being the response they get simply because they ask questions about a topic which many people have a strong aversion to addressing.

Also, Amy Goodman is a particularly interesting case simply because she claims support for a new investigation but takes no action in that direction, despite having an excellent platform from which to do so. As for Noam Chomsky, he has made some absurd defenses of the official conspiracy theory which has rightfully brought him critical questioning while unfortunately stirring up some hecklers too, and the same apparently goes for David Rovics (whom I didn't know from Adam until today). Sure, those three are Jewish, but then plenty more public figures who aren't Jewish get called out on their silence and/or denial too. So, why in the world are you dragging ethnicity into this, particularly when it seems you haven't even bothered to research Chomsky's or Rovics' position on the issue?

Regardless, so far your criticism has been entirely nonconstructive. How do you propose we break though the wall of silence which is our media and government without people like those with WAC exposing it? Surely you don't expect us to get a proper investigation into 9/11 until that hurdle is overcome?

"which you claim to believe

"which you claim to believe yourself yet also call "dogma""

A dogma is based on faith. I don't think that "9/11 was an inside job" should be elevated to a "dogma" even though I myself do believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Nor do I believe that those who do not agree with my views are somehow devious, agents, hypocrites, government agents, gatekeepers, agent prococateurs, etc. etc. etc. Let me rephrase that - they might well be any one (or seveal, or all) of the above, but I would not ascertain that on the basis of their disagreement with me. To put it simply: I disagree with Amy Goodman, but I don't want to "put her on the run".

Franlky, it is quite hard and distressing, even for a cynic like me, to accept that a group of people would have the nerve, the gall, to do what the folks who are behind 911 did. It is one thing to kill people from afar, by remote control or by evil policies , and quite another to shelp in many tons of explosives while meeting the people these explosives will kill every day while you fill the building with nanothermite. Even though 9/11 killed a little less than 3'000 humans, it has a uniquely evil quality to it, at least when one understands that it was, indeed, an inside job. So I cannot help but feel some sympathy for those who just don't find them in themselves to look at this horrible truth. Heck, I did so myself for 7 years.

As for ethnicity - I bring it in because I see how often the readers of my blog bring up the topic. And I while I never bothered to research Chomsky's views on the topic, I did discuss that topic with Rovics directly. So 2/3 I new for a fact.

You write: "How do you propose we break though the wall of silence which is our media and government without people like those with WAC exposing it"

Simple: following the example of AE911T and staying away from macho stuff like putting a woman on the run (even when taken as tongue-in-cheek).

But most importantly: anybody who supports a new investigation, even if only in words and half heartedly, is on our side.

supports a new investigation?

Amy Goodman does NOT support a new investigation. Saying she does under her breath to a YouTube camera does not qualify as 'support.'

That's something you should really think about. What does it mean to actually support a new investigation? I guarantee that Goodman does not qualify as someone who actually supports a new investigation. Using soft words without heart does NOT qualify.

Amy Goodman does NOT support a new investigation.

With you in the struggle,

I agree that she might not

I agree that she might not pro-actively or even sincerely support a new investigation. But when she says under her breath to a YouTube camera that she does support one, she at least cuts herself away from the option of opposing one. Put differently, she does not oppose a new investigation.

I think the real enemy are all the folks who under all sorts of reasons oppose a new investigation, like the ones who opposed the initiative on that in New York. We should extract a painful political price from any politician who openly dares to oppose a new investigation. These are the folks I would *FULLY* support challenging with "in your face" tactics. Heck, I would gladly join in!

I would like to add here that while I do very much the video in question, I sincerely wish WAC all the best and I support a lot of what WAC has done in the past (not least in NYC).

So yes, with you in the struggle,

The Saker

I don't think you got my point Saker.

Let me say it differently. Amy Goodman OPPOSES a new investigation. She is a high profile member of the press. By not talking about it openly and frankly, she is operating against a new investigation. She is actively participating in the cover up. Amy Goodman opposes a new investigation.


It seems you are shooting in the dark

First off, I'm familiar with the meaning of the term "dogma", but this is the first time I've ever seen anyone use it to refer to something they claim to believe themselves. That just seems very odd to me, as does your more recent suggestion that your faith based position should be considered something lower than dogma.

Anyway, I'm curious as to how much you know about Rovics' views, considering his whitewash here, and Chomsky is not on the side of 9/11 truth by any means either. As for Goodman, at least she doesn't actively defend the glaring absurdities and outright falsehoods in the official conspiracy theory, but as long as people in positions like hers are keeping their audiences in the dark to the facts, I can't rightly consider he an ally on this matter, and I'm glad we have people like those at WAC to document as much.

Please note that I'm not accusing anyone of i'll intent though, and I don't even suspect it from the inviduals mentioned here. In the case of Chomsky, I'm a fan of his works in general, and follow him close enough to be reasonably sure he is just suffering from the denial issue you mention, and I figure the same goes for most people, likely Rovics included from what little I know of him. As for Goodman, I'm quite fond of her works too, and based on her demeanor in the WAC videos I figure she would like to say more but has been threatened into doing otherwise. While I don't like seeing anyone in such a position, I can't rightly blame WAC for it, and rather expect that WAC's efforts will pave the way for people like Goodman to be freed to have representatives from AE9/11T and such on their shows, exposing the facts to a far larger audience than they could otherwise reach. Besides, AE9/11 truth is currently promoting a push to get Gage on the Colbert Report, so it seems they are following WAC's example, which basically puts your closing proposal undermining your preceding argument. Again, surely we have to expose the wall of silence before we can break through it, eh?

My (short) replies here

My (short) replies here below:

Dogma: ok, you can think of my belief that 9/11 was in inside job not as a dogma, but as a theologoumena if you prefer :-)

Where do I get my views about Rovics' stance: having interviewed him from my blog and exchanged correpondence with him on that topic.

WAC: I am also glad that WAC is out there. I just wish they did not use some rude tactics or interrupt speeches.

Good nite!


I think "dogma" is a more fitting term, and again simply found it odd that anyone would refer to a beleif of their own in such a way. As for Rovics, did you not read the article I linked where he effectively slandered AE9/11T as misinformation? Unless he has publicly renounces such comments, I don't see how anyone could rightly consider him an ally of the truth movement. Also, when has WAC interrupted speeches? The video you presented doesn't rightly back that charge, and I contend the charge of rudeness applies better to those who are keeping the 9/11 truth movement out of mainstream discourse far more than the people exposing them. I don't think it's your intent, but for all your talk of Gestapo-ness, it seems you are the one here who wants others goosestepping to your ethnic, gender, and social sensitivities.

All good points Dogcatcher.

Well said.