9/11 Conspiracy Theories Gaining Momentum. (This from Deniers, but at least they publish it, unlike the MSM)

9/11 Conspiracy Theories Gaining Momentum
Written by The Daily Bell
Monday, 26 April 2010 06:24

Published in "Right Side News"

9-11 Conspiracy Theorist Hits the Road... Infamous 9-11 conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin, whose books insist the Bush Administration and not al Qaeda blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, is launching a speaking tour this week to help merge the "9-11 Truth Movement" with "more traditional Peace and Anti-War groups" against the "illegal and immoral war" in Afghanistan. The tour also presages Griffin's next book, Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

This volume will make much hay over an Obama White House official's article in 2008 as a Harvard law professor, suggesting that the government actively rebut conspiracy theories by networking on social websites. ... Prodigiously, Griffin has been churning out 9-11 conspiracy books since 2004, asserting that U.S. agencies contrived a false flag terrorist attack through controlled demolitions. His first conspiracy potboiler was The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Griffin believes that U.S. history is primarily a long catalogue of conspiracies across two centuries to facilitate American imperialism and aggression. Griffin faults the United States for killing hundreds of millions of people globally through its economic, military and environmental crimes, making the U.S. more murderous than the old Soviet Empire or the Third Reich. - Front Page Magazine

Dominant Social Theme: Another tour to avoid?

Free-Market Analysis: The controversy around 9/11 is nearly a decade old now but it will not subside. People like David Ray Griffin continue to be in demand from a speaking standpoint and the amount of people who don't believe in the official 9/11 story may amount to as much as one-third of US adults. This is a significant problem, in our opinion. When this many people have questions about something so fundamental as 9/11, an erosion of civil society begins to occur. Government becomes the cynosure of suspicions rather than an organizing or socializing influence.

We want to return to 9/11 in this article as a follow to an article posted on Saturday, which attracted a great deal of feedback, and some pushback as well. The Bell examined a posting by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro for Fox News. In the process of rebutting recent accusations about 9/11 in a new book by Jesse Ventura, he made the rather startling claim that "Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building [WTC-7] - since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."

We pointed out, along with many others in the blogosphere, that this was a surprising assertion since it can take weeks to wire a building for demolition. And we wrote, "Thus, the blogosphere speculated, either the building was already wired or Larry Silverstein was thinking about wiring it in the future."

However, from the context of the statement, it seems fairly obvious that Silverstein is speaking of demolishing building 7 in a fairly immediate context. This is an important issue because Silverstein has always denied any intention of wiring the building and had explained a way a previous comment of his about "pulling" (demolishing) it. We also wrote that there are other issues swirling around the current 9/11 narrative. For instance, former Attorney General for the state of New Jersey and former senior counsel for the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, has written a recent book on problems the Commission had with government and military testimony. He writes bluntly in his foreword: ""At some level of the government, at some point in time, this book concludes there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened."

Additional questions regarding the official narrative have long been raised out on the 'Net. There is considerable confusion over the names of those who were said to have participated in the hijackings, with some of the alleged hijackers apparently now living in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. Bin Laden denied culpability for 9/11 and the many-storied caves out of which he supposedly worked were never found, nor were the Al Qaeda troops with which he surrounded himself.

Griffin himself has raised questions about the telephones from which victims supposedly called before impact. Cell phones were likely not capable of being used to make calls but there were apparently no onboard phones either on the planes, apparently, so how were calls made to loved ones, he asks. There are even more basic issues, such as why was the World Trade Tower steel supposedly shipped away from the site so quickly, within days when ideally such a vast and intricate crime scene should have been left alone for analysis?

There are literally hundreds of other issues that have been raised on the 'Net regarding 9/11 - some paranoid and some seemingly factual - including the presence, supposedly, of nano-thermite and the additional eyewitness accounts of molten steel puddles that did not solidify for days after the destruction of the towers. Are these perfervid imaginings - and does it matter if they are? The point is that suspicion remains in force for millions, and suspicion can turn to paranoia. Thus, we wrote that a new investigation into 9/11 would go a long way to dispelling confusion and, perhaps, defusing tensions.

It is also important because 9/11 lies at the heart of what America is becoming. It has been responsible for at least two wars in the Middle East and caused a wholesale change in the way Americans relate to their government. Unlimited wiretapping, aggressive monitoring of communications without warrants and other invasive governmental actions have been justified by a supposed need for increased security as a result of 9/11.

We also wrote that in America, "the Patriot Act and other abrogations of traditional American liberties could perhaps be justified on domestic security grounds." However, in no way were we justifying the Act, merely pointing out what the justifications were. Along with many civil libertarians, we believe the erosion of civil liberties in America and Europe are an abomination and that, in fact, there is no justification for them, no matter how "unsafe" the authorities claim certain regions and municipalities might become.

Likewise, we pointed out that there was "no need to accuse the US government or its penumbras (including Israel) of knowingly murdering 3,000 American citizens." We were writing, however, within the context of a potential new investigation. If one DOES contemplate a new investigation of some sort, it is not necessary to state conclusions in advance. The investigation could be an entirely private one, or a quasi-governmental one, or a combination of both. Accusations, meanwhile, wild or not, are not conducive to rational discourse.

Yet questions about 9/11 are obviously not going away. The 911 Commission report didn't even deal with building 7, and Griffin's latest tour (and Ventura's latest book) suggests in fact, that interest in the unresolved issues surrounding 9/11 remains high and may even be growing rather than subsiding. The Internet is partially responsible, as anyone can go online and find thousands of articles and videos that do not currently support the mainstream narrative.

Conclusion: In this article, we've elaborated on some of the other issues that cloud any definitive closure of 9/11 and tried to clarify some points. A commission that sorted through the conflicting claims of 9/11 - even were the commission to be entirely private (a "people's commission," so long as it included credible individuals with appropriate backgrounds) might reach a consensus that was beyond what the 9/11 Commission was able to generate. Such a commission, issuing a further, considered report, might change the course of history (at least a few degrees) while putting to rest at least some of the controversy regarding 9/11, which, as we can see from Griffin's tour, seems to be growing, not diminishing. An investigation that calmly analyzes the continued controversy could, in fact, be considered a patriotic act, in our view, given the present dismal state of societal comity in America. Up to 80 percent of the populace, as a recent Pew poll showed, are distrustful government. An attempt to clear the air when it comes to 9/11 might well be a move in the right direction

© Copyright 2008 - 2010 Appenzeller Business Press AG (ARBP). All Rights Reserved. The Daily Bell is an informative compendium of independent economic views and analysis, which is published by ARBP. The information contained in the Daily Bell is for informational purposes only, is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any particular person and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. ARBP does not accept any liability or responsibility for, nor does it verify the accurateness of the information being provided in the Daily Bell. Daily Bell articles and interviews may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and may require factual editing after their initial post. Readers of the Daily Bell or any affiliated or linked sources or sites must accept the responsibility for performing their own due diligence before acting on any of the information provided within the report regardless of the source. In addition to proprietary, internally generated content, the Daily Bell publishes guest editorials from a selection of free-market thinkers, which may have been reprinted elsewhere and are not necessarily representative of ARBP's editorial views. Copyright is attributed to the author of any guest editorials featured at the Daily Bell, unless noted otherwise

This was a good article..

This piece here I felt was very articulate and well done. Although I find that it does fail to mention NIST's admission of WTC7's freefall for 2.5 seconds and downplayed nano-thermite, but it did do fairly decent job in justifying a new 9/11 investigation. (IMHO).

Subscription is free to this site however, I could not find a way to leave a comment despite the offer to leave one. There is no link or box in which to leave one. Suspicious that it did not want comments on this topic, I tried other articles and could not leave comments there either. If you find something I missed (which is very possible at 9am and I am nearing the end of work shift. I hate graveyard shift) please post a link. Would like to leave my 2 cents worth there. Maybe give 'em a nickels worth after I've gotten some sleep. :o)

Peace all

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful."
-- Edward R. Murrow

Yes, it really is a good article.

That main point of the article, with which we can all agree, is that we must have a new investigation...............a really thorough one.
It is remarkable that this media source comes to this conclusion rationally, and yet the whole issue is avoided carefully by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, and Alternet (like Joshua Holland), and antiwar.com, and CommonDreams.org, and Counterpunch, and Noam Chomsky, and the rest.
They all think it is best not to talk about it.
They all have CENSORED 9/11 truth.

Maybe we have linked with the wrong people.
Maybe it is the rightwinger media people we should be making our allies.

Just a thought.

I can't blame them all..

Most of the recent positive media we've been getting has come from the so-called "right". I can't blame Amy Goodman, et al along that thread. Since many often meet outside their professional affiliations, I think somewhere along the line they decided that in the realm of self interest they would not endorse any alternative theories. I am sure it is from some threat, real or perceived. They must feel that by doing so would alienate their audience or do not feel their organizations can withstand the ostrazation they undoubtedly receive. Of course, telling the truth only has one consequence.. freedom.

thanks for all your posts and dedication.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."
-- Winston Churchill

Well, I think at LEAST we should realize....................

......................that Amy and Joshua and the rest of the alternative media people are as untrustworthy as the msm people.
They may agree with us on certain issues, but when it comes to truth, they ALSO feel it is something to be compromised for their own best interest or agenda.
It is very sad, because we have nowhere to go.
It could be that the very most suspicious people of government are on the right...........they just have to get over the Bush/Cheney loyalties. I think a lot of them have.
And WE, most of us being sort of liberal or libertarian, have got to get over being loyal to Obama.

For me, right.....left........libertarian.........whatever..........none of it matters. What matters is that the government was lying, is lying, about 9/11, and the press, msm and alternative, is censoring the truth. That is the real tyrrany.

We can quibble about a lot of things, but the truth of 9/11 is, in my mind, non negotiable, regardless of any other goals.

Who Spins Conspiracy Theories? Not Me!

Exactly what "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" is The Daily Bell referring to with NORAD? The 9/11 Commission Report says, "NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it."

The commission report then says:

"F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center."

"Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track [Flight 77], but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away."

"NEADS first received a call about United 93 from the military liaison at Cleveland Center at 10:07. Unaware that the aircraft had already crashed [at 10:03], Cleveland passed to NEADS the aircraft's last known latitude and longitude. NEADS was never able to locate United 93 on radar because it was already in the ground."

"NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it."

I don't think persons who accept the official 9/11 narrative believe The 9/11 Commission Report spins conspiracy theories!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC