Cockburn's Left Leaning attack on Castro, and the 9/11 Truth Movement


Cockburn ridicules Castro regarding his doubts about the US government’s official version of 9/11. There are numerous US and international scientists, engineers, and writers who have raised very important questions about the validity of the government’s version. David Ray Griffin’s article, “Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?”, contains extensive factual information and analyses in this regard (Web link:

Here is the article.  The link is:

Global Research, September 25, 2010

Counterpunch's "Left-Leaning" Attack on Fidel Castro


Global Research, September 25, 2010

The Counterpunch article of Alexander Cockburn of September 17, 2010, “Autumn of the Driveller“ ( ), on Fidel Castro, is not only arrogant and one-sided, it lacks theoretical grounding and clarity. So far, no critical articles have been posted on Counterpunch in reaction to this provocation. .


There is no need here to mention the far-reaching accomplishments of the leader of the Cuban revolution which have not only benefited and radically changed the lives of the Cuban population, but also those of millions of people throughout the Third World -frequently in the most difficult and dangerous areas- where thousands of Cuban doctors and teachers have worked selflessly for decades. He continues to be revered in Cuba as well as throughout the world. No other living political leader deserves such respect and reverence.


Castro is 84 years old and he has just stepped into the public political and intellectual life after a long and very serious illness, during which he continued his pursuit of justice, peace, and freedom from imperialism, through studies and writings. His reflections have addressed some of the major issues and problems that mankind is currently facing. By and large, these have been on the mark and have accurately identified their causes and possible solutions. It is indeed very courageous and generous of Castro to continue to benefit mankind with his profound revolutionary wisdom and practical experience that he acquired in face of having to deal with incredible odds and dangers, constantly created and thrown at him and Cuba by the most powerful imperialist country in the history of this planet. It is no exaggeration to state that his own survival-as well as the survival of Cuban socialist revolution-under constant conspiracies, plots, and attacks of US imperialism, for five long decades, have been nothing short of a miracle.


Cockburn picks out Castro’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, his opinion about the importance of the Bilderbergs that he developed from Daniel Estulin’s 'The Secrets of the Bilderberg Club”, his assessment of the role of rock music and Beatles in diversion of the energies from serious revolutionary thought and his doubts about the US government’s version of the “facts” on 9/11.

Castro was obviously misinterpreted and misrepresented by Goldberg in the interview and Castro himself explained that in an article, “Fidel’s message at the launch of La contraofensiva estratégica”, in the Granma International, after the interview. Web link: .

There is no reason to doubt his explanation. As far as the secretive Bilderberg Club is concerned, Castro may have exaggerated its importance but it is certainly one of the major power houses of imperialism, along with the Trilateral Commission. In addition to Daniel Estulin, various British and American writers and others, have also arrived at similar conclusions about the Bilderbergs.

In regards to rock music, many writers, e.g. Allan Bloom in his “Closing of the American Mind”, have pointed out its subtle impacts and "hedonistic effects" on hordes of young people, who were cleverly and methodically trapped by rock stars and music companies. Media, politicians, writers and others all jumped on the bandwagon and played their role in the production and elevation of the rock culture. This was, and continues to be, a major diversionary force in the capitalist-imperialist cultures, sapping the energies of countless young people into vulgar hedonism, and away from the development of higher forms of human nature and culture. It is to the credit of Castro to have identified and expressed his views on this major problem in the imperialist culture.

Cockburn ridicules Castro regarding his doubts about the US government’s official version of 9/11. There are numerous US and international scientists, engineers, and writers who have raised very important questions about the validity of the government’s version. David Ray Griffin’s article, “Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?”, contains extensive factual information and analyses in this regard (Web link:


Cockburn is supposedly a leading leftist writer in the US. Why then is he waging a hate campaign against Fidel Castro, who had succeeded in the establishment, preservation, and development of the only socialist revolution in this part of the world, within a short distance of the centre of imperialism?

It is totally understandable that a small and poor country like Cuba is experiencing extreme difficulties and problems in this most perverse moment of history. Despite the embargo and US sabotage it has maintained free healthcare, free education, housing for the entire population-free or at minimal costs-, a ration system to guarantee the supply of essential food items to all its citizens etc.

Before the collapse of the Soviet block, Cuba had developed extensive trade and other relations with those countries and its economy was able to maintain full employment. Even after that, the unemployment was kept to a minimum, never exceeding 3 percent. According to some current figures, it now stands at 1.7 percent.

However, all the unemployed still have the basic and substantial human rights mentioned above. The recent news about the transfer of 500,000 state employees to non-state sector is now being manipulated by the media to the maximum, even though the full details are still unknown. Instead of understanding, empathizing, and identifying the difficulties facing the Cuban revolution, sectors of the American "Left” including Cockburn, have started ridiculing and insulting its leader.

The fact of the matter is that these “leftists” have not been able to do anything practical and effective against capitalism, imperialism and injustice in their own society or anywhere else. All they do is unleash torrents of abstract and empty words that leave everything as it is.

Dr. Fazal Rahman is an interdisciplinary researcher and writer. He has worked as a scientist and administrator of R & D programs in several countries, like Brazil, Lebanon, Pakistan, Zambia, US etc. He can be reached at  


Why has "Alexander Cockburn" has done a 180 turn on the subject?

Herblay FRANCE

as some ask on another blog entry on the same subject why is it that "Alexander Cockburn" has done a 180 turn on the subject.

Is he being blackmailed ???? Or something else ? Is there anyone close to him that knows the reason ?



I would love to know.

Surely, someone somewhere knows why he, or those in similar positions in other alternative sites, did this turnaround.
In the last blog entry, all I got in replies were from people who thought it was reasonable for the alternative media, dozens of sites, ALL of them, to ignore the mountains of solid evidence proving that the official story is invalid. To me it is preposterous that these sites would go all these years with barely a mention of 9/11 truth, and most, when they mentioned 9/11 truth, it was to insult the movement.

I was disappointed that there was no possible explanation from anyone on this, and only defenders of these sites.

I don't get it.

nope pfgetty

No one says or has said in your previous posts, that its reasonable for the alt. media to ignore evidence. You just seem to keep telling everyone it's not worth our time to try and educate the alt. media and the msm on the subject. You keep trying to convince us not to reach out to these large groups of left leaning people who follows these alt. media blogs when THEY are the ones we need to reach and are open minded enough to actually reach for the truth. Being critical of Cockburn's statements is one thing. Calling him a paid for agent and then lumping him in with every other alt. media blog, then saying ALL OF THEM are corrupt is an absurd idea that you keep spreading on this site. So I'm sick of this attempted divisiveness and I'm going to keep calling you on it.

I'm sure you and others will follow all I say.........

We all have our jobs to do..............
But if you are sick of divisiveness, don't be so divisive.
This is not about attacking anyone in the truth movement. This is about attacking those OUTSIDE of the truth movement, those who seem to be working hard to smother the truth movement. If you want to defend them, then THAT is divisive.
But I don't care.
Follow up with your threats.
I will post when I have time, and that is not aways something I have, so you may be waiting for more for awhile.

I guess that we will probably be in about the same position we are right now in another 9 years. As long as nobody confronts the media about their censorship, we can have mountains of evidence, and we will be no further in getting out the word than we are now. In 9 years, Alexander Cockburn may feel it is safe to present a bit more evidence, and one day the 9/11 truth movement will be nothing but a hobby, much as the whole JFK assassination groups are, after decades. And it seems that this is what you would like..............a nice, well encapsulated truth movement that feeds only on itself, with the general population pretty much ignorant of the facts.
Well, if that is what you all want, that is probably what we will get. I certainly don't have the time or talent to change it.
But I think it is a shame, as so much great work and research and analyses and articles and books have been accomplished by so many great people, and it all seems to go to waste, and for one reason: the media!

The only hope I see is that the international movements will be far less worried about aggravating the American alternative media, and will begin spreading the world, particularly among Muslims. Hopefully all Muslims everywhere will put the pieces together and realize how horribly they have been treated, how they have suffered so badly, their reputation of the culture and religion so distorted and villified, and that they will fight for the truth. Ahmadinejad has begun the process (which has been completely ignored by the alternative media, other to publish the msm articles about his speech at the UN).
And at some point, it may not matter that Cockburn and Joshua Holland and Amy Goodman and Justin Raimondo have censored the news. The US will be an island of denial in a sea of 9/11 truth.
But who knows what the future will be. I only know what the past 9 years have been: an awakening among a few Americans to the lies of 9/11, with great people doing great research and articles, all of which is sequestered by the media, hidden, purposely, and all of this defended by people like kdub.

Maybe things will change. OR...Maybe kdub and others will be able to protect the alternative media from any criticism. I don't know.
I'll just say it like I see it.

Here's a bit from Cockburn.................

this is an excerpt, but you have to read the whole Counterpunch article.
He is good. A great writer. A great thinker. Great thinkers can make anything sound good, and Alexander is at his best here.
Anyone who understands the work of Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan will see the extraordinary lengths this "alternative" writer has gone to defend the official story:

One trips over a fundamental idiocy of the 9/11 conspiracists in the first paragraph of the opening page of the book by one of their high priests, David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor. "In many respects," Griffin writes, "the strongest evidence provided by critics of the official account involves the events of 9/11 itself In light of standard procedures for dealing with hijacked airplanes not one of these planes should have reached its target, let alone all three of them."

read the whole thing:

another excerpt from that article:

Michael Neumann, a philosopher, and CounterPunch contributor, at the University of Trent, in Ontario, remarked in a note to me:
"I think the problem of conspiracy nuttery has got worse, and is part of a general trend. There really were serious questions about the Kennedy assassination, an unusual number of them, and it wasn't too crazy to come to the wrong conclusion. There wasn't a single serious question about 9-11. But this is the age of angels, creationism, corpses all over Kosovo, Arabs suspiciously speaking Arabic, Satanic child abuse, nucular Eyraquees, and channeling. The main engine of the 9-11 conspiracy cult is nothing political; it's the death of any conception of evidence.


pfgetty wrote:

"This is about attacking those OUTSIDE of the truth movement, those who seem to be working hard to smother the truth movement. "

NO WAY. You are way off here and I will never endorse this approach. You are exposing here exactly how divisive you are.

pfgetty wrote:

"Maybe things will change. OR...Maybe kdub and others will be able to protect the alternative media from any criticism. I don't know.
I'll just say it like I see it."

Wrong again, I encourage us to be critical of all and always have. Let us be equally critical of 9/11 truth, the alt. media and the msm. Calling names and accusing people of being agents is not criticism, it's childish heckling.

Heckling and calling names..............

...............that is exactly what I have gotten from you and Jon gold and jim whatever.

I blogged about the alternative media, not about other Truthers, and got attacked by people who are supposed to be in the 9/11 truth movement.

If you want to attack me, fine, but don't tell me I'm the one being divisive and attacking others here.

I want to know if you think that the WTC collapsed because of controlled demolition. I want to know if you think the discrepancies in stock trading before 9/11 should be investigated. I want you to tell me if you think these, and other similar issues, should be presented on the alternative media, and how long is suspiciously too long for none of the more popular sites to ignore these and other issues.

You have effectively just turned this into a fight between me and several attack dogs here.
But you give no indication of where you stand, and why you defend the alternative media. You obviously have little respect for DRG and don't even seem to feel ae911truth's research, like on nanothermite, is of much value. All of it is, well, confusing, it seems you are saying, and that the alternative media is only confused about it.
That's crazy.
If you honestly don't feel there is much of a case here, I have to wonder what you are doing here.
Aren't there other more interesting websites for you to spend your time in?

Nine years.......................virtually no presenting of 9/11 truth information on these alternative sites. Instead of agreeing that this is very odd, you attack me in just about every way you can.

Do you know some of the people in these venues? Really. I'd like to know why you are so defensive of them.

A lot of things may be going on...

... and financial ties may well have something, or even a lot, to do with it, as many have argued. Psychological factors, such as those discussed in the February issue of The American Behavioral Scientist, may play an even greater role.

I think we will just try to wake up as many people as possible so that these "alternative" media realize that soon too many Americans question the official fairy tale for their unquestioning position to be untenable. We need to reach a situation where, say, the kids or spouses of the "leftist" gatekeepers (whatever the reason for their gatekeeperism) start to question the OCT. It's one thing to dismiss something a stranger say as nonsense. It's quite another to ignore what your spouse, child or close friend is saying.

What is it?

The one(s) who downvoted my comment: Do you think there cannot be any financial incentives for the alternative media to ignore 9/11? Or that some psychological factors might not be at play? Please clarify.

Of course there are financial incentives/psychological factors

I'm sure most people are voting you down because you are suggesting we approach "Gatekeepers" on their "Gatekeeperism." This terms are like beginning a discussion with a 9/11 truther with something like 'we (the hypothetical news reporter or whatever) confronted these "theorists/nuts" on their "loony ideas." The term "Gatekeeper" is inherently insulting and sounds as audacious as "9/11 Was Inside Job. Why don't you get that already, like I do, you stupid zomby?!" 9/11Truthers have to remain humble in this regard. We must not convey that 9/11 Truth is espousing views that we (9/11 truth) has all the answers and also, 'guess what?,' 9/11 truth has actually figured, out all by ourselves, that YOUR FAVORITE SOURCES of information are actually "gatekeepers" who are likely co-opted by co-intelpro and foundation funding and purposefully limiting what they show you (yet we have a really hard time giving you tangible proof of these claims). If I personally didn't know anything about 9/11 Truth, I would IMMEDIATELY SHUT OFF to anyone making me feel this way and calling my favorite source names. In fact when you call names like that, it doesn't matter if your point or side is right, we lose the argument by not winning over the new subject who was just beginning to open up to us.

Perhaps those sites that are not funded by foundations or...

not co-opted by Mockingbirds assume it would be suicidal to come out with the TRUTH as they know it.

I look forward to the day when it is suicidal NOT to tell the whole diabolical truth.

Kevin Ryan wrote an article, wondering why on earth...........

...................Alexander Cockburn sided with Garcia, against what the 9/11 Truth movement knew to be true..........

It is mindboggling.

Here is an excerpt:

Government scientists get paid to support government policies, particularly in this era of "Bush Science", and clearly Garcia is willing to play along. But why would political news organizations, like Counterpunch, that present themselves as alternatives to the corporate media, promote these false claims?

Consider for a moment the implications of a breakthrough in the truth about 9/11. If the official story about 9/11 is completely false, as it has proven to be, that fact should call into question those media sources who have helped to cover-up the details over the last five years, even if only through gross negligence of the facts. Whether or not collusion with alternative media was involved, if there is a possibility that the neo-cons actually helped in planning or executing the attacks, then the fact that they pulled it off means that Alexander Cockburn and other (ostensibly) liberal leaders might no longer enjoy the "irreverent and biting" superiority that they identify themselves with. It could be very distressing for some of these rebel leaders to realize that instead of "muckraking with a radical attitude" they have spent years meekly bolstering the status quo.


I too feel totally frustrated and amazed by the obfuscatory behavior of most major Alternative news and opinion sites, vis-a-vis 9-11-01.
But, you know, we can't do much about it, other than keep trying to educate people. To my sights, that approach is working.

Since, luckily, the truth itself is powerful on its own. It is always more powerful than falsehood. Infinitely so. What do I mean? Well, just looking at how WTC 7 collapsed trumps every MSM statement about 9-11. The firefighter clip does the same. So many other bits of evidence do the same. Spread awareness of those as widely as possible.

Times are different than the mid 1960s when there was no Internet. Let's hope this movement can continue its exponential growth. Let's add to that growth by educating people. Alternative media should become as irrelevant as the MSM has become, if they fail to join in on this. Instead of complaining, why not help more in rendering them irrelevant? And I appreciate what I have seen you do in that realm. Just keep it up.

thanks for that...............

I have been working to spread the word about 9/11 truth. Everything I find I post here, also on something called Dentaltown, I email everyone I have emails for, and generally try to spread all information everywhere I can.
I feel that now the truth movement needs to be all about spreading the word. Most of the research and analyses have been done, far more than is necessary to prove we need a new investigation and that the official story is invalid.
I was recently at the 9/11 rallies in NY and was in the "glow" of that..........fantastic time and people.
But having thought about it, we are WAY behind getting the word out. 9 years. If we wait too long, the material we have will be irrelevant, much like what happened with the JFK assassination.
It is vital that the information get out quickly.

But it is hard not to notice that the media will not present anything we have. It was not shocking that the msm would not publish our work, but it WAS a shock that the alternative media would not. After all, it was this group that turned me on long before the rest of the country that the WMD issue was bogus.
But then what happened?
9/11 is the most important event in US history. As it became obvious to me that the official story was false, I was aghast that the alternative media would not mention any of the evidence that I was seeing.
Years went by. An occassional hit piece on 9/11 truthers would show up on their sites, but that is it.

Ok, so, do we just ignore this oddity? This is incredible. Are we not to mention that the alternative media has ignored us, completely for all these years? Is this a forbidden topic for 9/11 truthers?

It is baffling to me why this is going on in the more popular alternative media. I don't think it is so divisive of anything, or nefarious, for me to question WHY this is happening. I would think we would ALL wonder what in the world is going on. I'm sure somebody in the truth movement has some connections to journalists in the alternative media. Maybe some of them could enlighten us. Maybe it could give us some idea of how to break through to them. What we have been doing is a complete failure with them, and there is no reason to think what we are doing is going to change anything if we continue as we have.
I'd really love to know first of all why they have ignored us, and then, maybe with some insight from some people with connections to them, we could change our tactics.
But if it is forbidden to bring this topic up, then I guess we will not ever find out what is going on. And we will continue as we have been, totally locked out of the media.
What was almost as baffling as why the alternative media ignores our information is why, when I bring this up here, I get vicious attacks against me, people who say they will continue to do so no matter where or when I ask these questions.
THAT has made me even more suspicious of what is going on.
I can't imagine people truly interested in getting 9/11 info out being so obsessed with arguing with me, and even badmouthing some of the pillars of the 911 truth movement, like DRG and others. It was just shocking, and mostly I'd like to ignore them.
I just simply want any information anyone might have as to why all these popular venues continue to ignore all of our evidence and information.
That's all.


"Are we not to mention that the alternative media has ignored us, completely for all these years? Is this a forbidden topic for 9/11 truthers?"

Not a forbidden topic. We all notice it and talk about it. It isn't divisive either as far as I can tell. But it does get a little repetitive, just to rant about it -- and pardon the pejorative..

I guess it will be smart to look for more ways to reach into alternative media. For instance, somehow, Sander Hicks got two 9-11 related pieces done in Alternet -- maybe not the strongest of pieces, but the topic was there at least.

All we can do is keep trying.

Well this is what I like............

and expected.
Thanks, student.
What I wanted was some dialogue..........SOMETHING!
I was going crazy, thinking I am the only one seeing this complete avoidance of the topic of 9/11 on the alternative media.
It is neat that Sander Hicks presented something.
That is something that should be put on 911blogger. I don't go to alternet much like I used to. In fact, I used to contribute, until Joshua Holland insulted us.

so this is a good thing, and something I like to hear.
Can you post it on here, or put the link?

You say you ALL notice it. I haven't noticed that you all notice it. I'm glad to hear someone say that.

When I began putting bits up about the avoidance of 9/11 truth on alternet, I got nothing, and then, finally, attack pieces against me.

What we need is SOME understanding of what is going on. That is not divisive or too much to ask. Then we need to figure out some way to work with them................if they obviously are controlled, and that is a possibility and I'm sorry if some are horrified that I would even mention it..............then we need to figure how to work with that or avoid them and alert other 911 truthers as to what is going on.

But it should NOT be forbidden to talk about this seeming censorship of 911 on these popular alternative antiwar websites.
That is ridiculous.
We need to TALK THIS OUT!
And I don't need to get attacked for bring up any of this.

Thanks for corresponding in a nice way, student.

Alternative media

What seems to be glossed over, is the possibility of many key figures in the alternative media getting frustrated with the reams of nonsense flung into their laps, with the added admonition that they'd better promote it... or else.

The 'or else' part usually involves video camera stalking or e-mail bombs. Try to imagine just how counterproductive that can become.

Whereas many on 911blogger explain the behavior of the alternative media away as some vast 'mockingbird'-type conspiracy, there are also plenty of us, including yours truly, who think that in some cases, we brought this upon ourselves.

I submit to you that the motto I live by is to accept no authority but the truth. I accept no leader's word as gospel. If the truth about 9/11 involves accepting parts of, or agreeing with sections of, the official narrative, then so be it. Many times, I have accepted theories from the 9/11 truth movement as fact, only to learn later they were a bunch of bunk. This will not happen again. Too many people seem to think that truth is a function of how closely you stick to the socially accepted norms of a given group dynamic. It's not. Truth can only be attained by approximation, in fact, by probabilistic inductive reasoning, and the cognitive biases and other errors of judgment that permeate this process are so numerous and ubiquitous that it's extremely hard to 'get it right'.

Many truthers speak in absolutisms, such as: 'the science is settled', but the terminology they use (e.g. 'freefall speed') betrays a deplorable command of scientific skills.

At times, I can and will take certain 'celebrities' to task over their usually coarse and poorly formulated dismissals of the truth movement. But also at times, I see our chances at a media breakthrough, progress in research or broad acceptance squandered by extremely poor social or technical judgment. And that makes me angry. Angry enough to understand why some of the alternative media direct so much hatred towards the 9/11 truth movement.

In a movement that seeks truth, there can be no unity, because there can be no competing truths that are simultaneously true; one faction is always horribly wrong and one is right; and therefore one faction suffers under the promotion of the flawed claims of the other. Given that this is not a movement where one faction can dictate what the other faction should think, the process of 'what is generally agreed upon', is a time consuming, iterative, evolutionary process. This process hurts egos and creates enmity.

I can't defend the truth movement against critics that reprimand us for claiming no plane hit the Pentagon; I agree with such critics. I can't defend the truth movement for embracing Ahmadinejad as a spokesperson. I can't defend truthers who moonlight as Holocaust deniers. I can't defend truthers who proclaim victory on the basis of a collection of curiosities and anomalies, but without a coherent, sound, inescapable cumulative or deductive argument. Many other examples exist.

Do not act surprised we have squandered so much credit in so many places... Screaming absurdities such as "9/11 was a satanic ritual sacrifice by the illuminati NWO" with cult-like zeal alienates a movement into the fringe. I'm not saying you do so, but there are also many much subtler absurdities continuously promulgated by seemingly much more reasonable truthers, which will nonetheless have the exact same effect on the well read intelligentsia which populate the alternative left-wing media.

Why is Project Censored a rare exception? Because the only criteria for promotion there are censorship and a degree of plausibility: the nanothermite paper, on its own by itself, has both and within this narrow framework it is successful.

P.S. What *I* notice, is a sharp decline in both quantity (of members) and quality (of comments). Much of what I see, instead, is febrile, almost hysterical cheer leading of various 'leaders'. I also see legions of 'beginners' with lots of hubris who are impervious to criticism and who seem to promote all the most damaging discredited humbug without second thought and without remorse. To me this represents a hollowing out of the truth movement and it bothers and concerns me greatly. I can't force anybody to accept certain basic facts as fundamental. Instead, the same discussions appear to be necessary, over and over again. I do a lot of introspection and find that my consciousness and self-awareness of the way I interpret events, data and facts have improved. As such, I know which pitfalls to avoid and I know not to rush to judgment. I know that I need to evaluate a story from both sides and I know that I need to hold my standards to the strictest of rigor. At least, I hope that my progress, if any, is this, otherwise, I have learned little and the past 7 years of study and research have been futile. I have much left to learn, and frankly, the more I learn, the lesser I realize I know. However, this doesn't mean I am slowly regressing towards agnosticism: instead with each lesson learned, my horizon widens.

While there has been plenty of crazy nonsense..........

,,,,,,,,,,,,,that has come out since 9/11, I have a lot more respect for journalists in weeding through all of this than you apparently have.
I have been able to weed through the silly stuff, and see the rock solid evidence, and I've done it pretty easily.
There is not much I've been tripped up about. I'm a pretty scientifically and logically oriented person.
I'm often interested in wild theories, but I keep them in a special drawer in my mind..................sort of fun to think about but, well, not of much value.
And I think most good journalists are at least as good as I am in figuring this stuff out, once they see it.

But so, so much has come forward about so many topics of 9/11 that are simply irrefutable. A lot of them show how implausible the official story maybe there is a 10% chance of it being the way the official story tells it. Add up a whole bunch of these and you are down to a tiny number % chance that these could explain that horrible day.
And then, there are the mounds of evidence that show the official story to be IMPOSSIBLE............100%. All you need is one of these, but there are plenty.
And any good, intelligent journalist should be able to see this.
If ONE alternative site was baffled by it all, year after year, I could appreciate the possibility of that. But to have democracyNow, commondreams, counterpunch, alternet, motherjones, zmag, nationmag, and ALL ignoring all of this evidence..................sorry, something is definitely going on.
And I think I am being rational here, and I don't deserve a bunch of attack queens going after me. I think I deserve a reasonable discussion, and at least SOME agreement from others on this.

It is simply odd, and really overwhelmingly baffling, that all of these venues seemed to stop completely in their coverage of the mounting evidence against the official story of 9/11.
If you don't see that, I am really shocked. To me that is almost impossible.

Now, if you think, EVEN WITH THIS ODDITY, we should remain quiet about it, should not talk about it, be especially polite in our discussions and make sure we never criticize the alternative media in any way, then, well, we disagree, but I can respect another viewpoint on this.

But if you see nothing especially weird about this situation in those alternative media venues in their noncoverage of 9/11 truth, then I think you are really missing something or you have some other agenda. I'm sorry, but my logic here leads me only to that. Still, you don't have to attack me and insult me.

In short, we SHOULD discuss this, and this SHOULD NOT be a forbidden subject. It is NOT divisive, as I am not attacking anybody in the 9/11 movement at all. Not even close. Just don't attack me for wondering, and requesting help in answering these baffling questions about the alternative media.

Positive examples

Personally, I find the Real News to be a very powerful ally. Say what you will, but Paul Jay is trying.

The Real News

Then there's Mike Malloy.

There's Indymedia.

There's Project Censored, still fighting the good fight, in a related post here on 911B.

Some interesting discussion about Thom Hartmann here

But.. to come back to the core of the argument: the way I reason now, that is, these days, is that if you assert that the alternative media are all knowingly conspiring, in concert, to suppress 9/11 truth, then I demand that you prove it: you carry a burden of proof for such claims. Otherwise, an equally reasonable conclusion is that the majority of the prominent alternative left-wing media deem 9/11 truth without factual merit. (And I explained why I suspect that is in the comment you replied to)

Prove your case, with hard evidence. And let me remind you of the irony: the cognitive flaws that lead you to assert I may have an 'agenda' and that the entire alternative media is out to get you, are the exact same cognitive flaws that lead you or others to promote baseless theories that serve to discredit the 9/11 truth movement much more than any DRG book-induced orchestrated infiltration theory can accomplish. I acknowledge that there is orchestrated psyop going on. That does not, in any way, absolve you from fulfilling your burden of proof. If anything, your offensive insinuation that I may have an 'agenda' is the ultimate evidence of your flawed cognitive processes, and therefore your obligation to support your argument properly before conjecturing.

I'm not about to PROVE anything......................

.................if you recall, I have been asking over and over again, WHAT IS GOING ON?
I have said over and over again that I am baffled. I have said over and over again I don't get it.
I have said over and over again I'd love to hear from someone who KNOWS what is going on...........somebody that may have connections or friends in the alternative media.

And for this, I am attacked and insulted.

Yes, I have mentioned that it seems very, very, very hard for me to believe that these journalists have not seen ANYTHING presented by the 9/11 truth movement that would warrant publishing. It is extremely odd, as I've put it. And if it is the case that they know, and do not publish, then I'd say there is an agenda going on.

These are not things I have to prove. These are things that can lead to a discussion from people who may have more information. The are not things that need to lead others to attack me.
This is not a forbidden subject.
But I have to be suspicious of people who do think it is a forbidden subject. And this does not call for proof. I am merely saying that to say that I should not bring up these questions is something that seems weird to me. If it is annoying to you to listen to my questioning of the alternative media, skip what I have to say and go on to something else. Maybe some others can enlighten me, without insulting me.

Here it all is in one bundle: the more popular alternative sites have avoided all of the major stories and evidence that has been provided by the 9/11 truth movement for many years. They have been shown and given most of the material. Some have been insulting to the movement. I do not see why they have done this. I'd like some insight as to why this has gone on for so long. The explanation that they must just not be aware of any of the information doesn't seem rational to me. I'd like to know if anyone has a better explanation. And if not, is it reasonable that there may be some coercion going on? Could it be because of some kind of financial support they are getting from foundations that do not want 9/11 truth exposed? These are valid question. They should not be offensive, unless you are somehow loyal to these people, in which case you know them, and in which case I wish you'd tell us why they have avoided 9/11 truth.

I do not see why this cannot be discussed in a gentlemanly way here.

I do not have "cognitive flaws" that lead me to think you are doing anything at all. I am saying that I do not understand why I am attacked for bringing up this vital discussion.
I'd like to get back to discussing what I just wrote, above, instead of jabs back and forth.

Do you have any ideas of why these journalists have almost completely avoided the topic of 9/11 truth?

Interestingly, I have just posted several stories from odd journals and websites about 9/11 truth. All of this material could have been found in the alternative press, but I don't think it has. To me that is odd, that a business site in Canada is interested in 9/11 truth, but not Commondreams or or democracynow.

Do you not think that is weird, snowcrash?

It's like

you just read over all the argumentation I provide and start over again... You don't seem to want to engage in the points I raise at all... instead you play the victim card.. repeatedly, ask for a civil conversation and then insinuate I have an agenda... yeah well... my agenda is truth or may the heavens fall. I admire Bob McIlvaine; he seems to have realized early on that 'membership' or association with certain groups limits his freedom to speak out and say the things *he* wants to say. He owes allegiance to nobody. A ronin, if you will.

I'm badly in need of sleep, so, I have to cut it short here, but I implore you: if you have a theory, subject it to scrutiny. What does Russ Baker do when he wants to fact check his interpretations? He contacts the individuals in question directly for clarification. Like a true journalist. (Of course, doors open for him due to his resume, but so what, all it takes is some cohones) That's what I like so much about his book: if he suspects Bob Woodward had a double agenda during Watergate; he phones Woodward and confronts him, calmly, patiently, citing hard facts. The objective is to milk Woodward for information that is relevant, not just to get into a philosophical or ideological argument.

So: survey the alternative media directly, and without any judgment, ask every single one of them how they arrived at their current policy with respect to 9/11 truth. Do not evangelize; just try to pry the facts from their jaws: what was the straw that broke the camel's back? What caused them to turn away from topics related to 9/11 truth? Don't bring up why or even that you believe 9/11 was an inside job, that's a sure way not to get the answers you are pining for. At all. Focus on listening and asking neutral questions, not talking. I can't emphasize this enough. If asked, explain you are interested in the editorial decision making process behind the scenes of alternative media. Don't admit you are a 'truther'; just say you are fascinated by the media's "handling of conspiracy theories". Catch the drift? You're going to have to devise some sort of 'spiel' here, a ploy, a sales pitch, you're going to be doing some 'social engineering', whatever method works best and yields you the best, most comprehensive information is what you stick with. Note: e-mail will most definitely yield unsatisfactory results in this case, I think.

Free yourself from conjecture, just go out there and call these people. Hone your phone based people skills so that they'll tell you the details of internal decision making. Will you discover that they are acting in concert? Who knows.. but you'll be putting your hypothesis to the test. In this sense, investigative journalism isn't much different from the scientific method. Allow for the possibility that your implied concerted censorship hypothesis is falsified by your findings. Or buttressed. Whatever you discover, it's bound to be fascinating. You're American aren't you? Just gather the phone numbers of these media outlets and start dialing. You'll find this process of independent fact finding to be liberating. When you're done, you can post a blog here on 911blogger in which you are a primary source. An exclusive. Now isn't that something?

ETA : It's important not to jump the gun: when you get someone on the phone, e.g. lead in with: "Hi, my name is .... I have a question about editorial policies for xxxxxx, who may I speak to that can answer my specific questions?" --- you get the person --- "Hi... my name is.. I was wondering if you have a specific policy with respect to topics covering 9/11. I'm sure you know about the '9/11 truth movement'. Several alternative media outlets, including yours, have ostensibly refrained from covering this particular arena, widely regarded as conspiratorial. I'm interested in the decision making process behind this, as I'm fascinated with mass psychology and conspiracy theories. Could you explain your position and how you arrived there?", etc. etc. etc. Take this as far as you want to go with it. Just my well meant advice here.. take it how you want it.

Let's start over, because you are not hearing me........

I am saying I am baffled by the silence of the popular alternative media on 9/11 truth.
I would like to hear from anyone who knows what is going on.
I don't want to be told that probably none of these journalists and editors know anything about 9/11 truth, or are hopelessly confused about it. That seems unreasonable to me. It doesn't pass the logic test.
And I don't want to be told that this is a divisive or irritating or unnecessary topic.
I simply want others to discuss with me if they have ideas about why this is going on.
If you don't like the discussion, don't bother with it.

SnowCrash, I'm not about to try to get in touch with all of these people at these sites. I appreciate the advice, but I've had discussions with one, and it was less than illuminating, and for my efforts I was banned from the comment section. Another site banned me for one innocuous and polite comment about 9/11 truth. I would expect that the truth may not be forthcoming from someone in their position anyway.

What I'd like is for others to join in, admit that it DOES seem odd that none of them present 9/11 truth (I cannot imagine someone in the truth movement not recognizing something odd about years going by with no 9/11 truth stories), and discuss and inform me of any ideas or information they may have the could enlighten me as to what is going on.

If you don't have any ideas, fine. If you do, let me know.

I appreciate your taking time to give me some advice as to how to approach these people, but frankly what I wanted to know is what others felt about it, and if they have some information about it.

And, SnowCrash, conjecture is not a bad thing. It is reasonable to have a few ideas of what might be going on. It might be good to have a few more given to me from others. I think it is a good way to begin to figure out this baffling issue.

What you are saying

is that if you disagree with it, you don't want to be told about it. In fact, you're pretty closed minded and obtuse, yet you continue to be 'baffled' by what's going on. The impression you give me with this attitude is as if you are a police inspector walking onto a crime scene, with witnesses left and right telling you in your left and right ear what happened. Yet unperturbed, you stroll along, as if you're all alone, while you keep wondering aloud: "What on EARTH might have happened here??". The witnesses become desperate and start to scream. You remain unmoved and stroll along. Do you realize how utterly detached from reality this state of mind is?

You are never going to get answers to your questions this way. You continue to say you do not want to be insulted or told that this is a divisive topic. Who are you talking to? You're not even talking to me, you are presumably talking to kdub, who I largely agree with, by the way. I am not kdub though. And you keep saying I don't 'hear' you. Well, I obviously do hear you loud and clear, and what I'm hearing is very disconcerting, perhaps symptomatic for the truth movement in this particular phase of its existence.

Conjecture is a bad thing. Conjecture leads to a severely distorted view of reality. We need less conspiracy theorists and more skeptics. Skeptics know how to better recognize and avoid cognitive biases.You are clearly showing all the signs. It has nothing to do with intelligence, but everything with flaws that are inherently human. Yet there can be no room for such obstacles when you are a truth seeker, a scientist, a researcher, an investigative journalist... or an activist. After all, if what you believe is factually incorrect, would you care? Or would you rather choose to believe whatever satisfies your hunger for patternicity?

I'm going to give up: we've been going in circles and I see no real dialogue going on here. I'm sure you feel the same way. I have put forth ideas, and you simply hand wave them. I don't feel satisfied about this though: in talking to you, I feel like I'm talking to a significant segment of the truth movement, and I have obviously failed miserably trying to empower you to be your own researcher. After all, you don't really need me, or anyone else here, to tell you what is amiss with the alternative media's coverage of 9/11 truth. You need you.

Amazing Posts Snow Crash!!

Wow those last few posts you made here above are fantastic. You have illustrated your points perfectly and are teaching us some valuable lessons from your obvious years of experience in the movement. If Neil Stephenson knew about this subject he, would respect the way you just put it! Way to keep it peaceful and just demand that people simply back up what they assert. So funny that the only way some people can respond is by changing the subject or ignoring your points and questions!

Do you have a blog or do any writtings?


You're the first to bring up Neil Stephenson.. that's indeed where I got my name from. I'm not much of a science fiction reader, but I got that book as a gift from a friend and I was hooked from the first page. In the book, the term 'snowcrash' has two meanings: the futuristic drugs/virus that infects the minds of civilians in real life and the computer virus that crashes and infects the avatars of those who are exposed to it in the "metaverse" (The book was published in 1992, but you can compare that to virtual reality). When I registered for 911blogger, I figured it could have a third meaning: the crash of the twin towers and the toxic dust clouds that carpeted Manhattan. (Of course, 9/11 is about much more than controlled demolition research although the discovery of nanothermite is certainly the strangest and most menacing discovery.) I also chose the name because I recognized a few things of myself in the main character, Hiro Protagonist. I could decode most metaphors and hints in the book because of the shared interests I have with Stephenson (hacking, budo). When I read the book, I could tell Stephenson knows exactly what he's talking about in both those areas. He's a phenomenal writer, and the book paints a breathtaking picture of a futuristic fascist dystopia. Stephenson is a visionary just like Orwell.

My blog is mostly here on 911blogger. I recommend these articles from old to new:

  1. Air Force One Flyby Causes Brief Panic In NYC
  2. Editor in chief of Open Chemical Physics Journal resigns after controversial article on 9/11
  3. Polls show broad skepticism among Americans of official 9/11 narrative
  4. Chemical Engineer Mark Basile Discusses 9/11 WTC Dust
  5. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is 'annoyed' by 9/11 truth
  6. Untangling the Bizarre CIA Links to the Ground Zero Mosque

2 and 5 kicked up the most fuss, I reckon. 2 was picked up by prof. Harrit and eventually served as a footnote in David Ray Griffin's book about WTC 7, although I wasn't credited. No hard feelings though. I bought the book. 5 was featured by Infowars. 6 I didn't write myself, instead I copied it from the New York Observer and converted links to footnotes, nevertheless I feel it's a very important piece.

Recently, I wrote for alternative media outlet Media Roots: The War On Paranoid Rhetoric

Quite timely, I guess, given Obama's recent political abuse of a terror alert. As soon as the media invoked an incident at the Eiffel Tower without real justification, I knew Americans were being played for their sensitivities: most Americans associate the Eiffel Tower with the Twin Towers or, perhaps, the White House of Europe. A powerful symbol that evokes fear if put into a context of a terror threat. Clearly, it wouldn't have worked with the Atomium or the Colosseum. Same reason most Hollywood movies are filmed in Paris. What a sad state we are in. Luckily it backfired, but then again, in the grand scheme of things, we've already lost all of our civil liberties and freedoms.


Sander's stuff did appear here. It was a while ago. As I say, it was refreshing that it happened at all at such a censored website as Alternet. Look jhere and here.

Maybe we can learn from this? I never figured out how he got his stuff there while even in comments most of us could not. Snow Crash makes a good point about dumb behavior sometimes killing the message.


Thanks for that.
Maybe as the years go by Alternet will change just a little.

In the meantime, I recognize that there are many other websites and media outlets that are doing a good job. They just seem to be quite obscure.
But I have just posted a few from interesting outlets in which the recent new videos are discussed, and that is a great thing.

Student, if you will, keep your eyes and ears open for any discussion or information about the alternative media and their avoidance of 911 truth, and particularly if they DO post some 9/11 truth. I'd love to see it. It would make my day.


pfgetty, or anyone

I too would like to find out more clearly what has happened to most alternative media and certainly the main alternative news rags and websites, on this particular issue. I know I am by no means alone in this interest and also, this major frustration.

We know of the funding issues -- Ford Foundation and so on. We have no evidence that I know of, other than the clear point that many alternative news media depend on big foundations; so it is strong but circumstantial evidence.

I have seen guesses about coercion. Presumably it would be very difficult to obtain evidence of same.

Then there is the famous quote by former CIA director William Colby, that pretty much all media worth mentioning are controlled or even owned by the CIA.

And there are psychological theories, detailed in the SCAD paper.

Due to time constraints right now, I won't look for links to back these statements up, but presume we all can use Google, or this website's search function, to find relevant links.

Perhaps there are other theories too, worth looking into?

A summary article on this would be welcome. I doubt I will have time soon to try putting such a thing together. I wish a real journalist would do it. I also wish some (perhaps out-of-work? and/or anonymous?) journalist would tell of what pressures they have faced on this topic.

you have illustrated a confirmation of SnowCrash's point

These are all circumstantially based theories. Therefore it is very easy when touching upon these subjects to paint far to broad a brush. It would be ridiculous to assume we cannot reach out to people because 'someone they work for receives funding or support from something or other.' Don't get discouraged when people get critical of us, it's actually a good sign. Some of the alt. media that used to completely ignore us are now at least confronting us and trying to back up their positions. That is why OF COURSE we cannot assume that ALL of ANY group are controlled at all and must reach out and break down the bad information they have been exposed to. In some cases we owe some of them apologies for our name calling and bad information that was presented in our good name. I used to be so cynical towards my favorite left leaning blogs/newshosts who dropped the ball on 9/11 truth. However when I allowed my cynicism to prevent me from even trying to reach out and even to call people ugly names like "gatekeeper," I wasted a lot of potential energy and isolated myself politically. The potential for this cynicism is perfectly natural because it is incredibly frustrating for folks to take time to figure things out. However natural this potential is, WE MUST NOT let this cynicism trap catch us as good activists and truthers. We have a lot more to offer than name calling and belittling peoples ignorance on the subject. We need to end the ignorance on the subject with a POSITIVE UNCYNICAL approach with GOOD INFORMATION!


"We need to end the ignorance on the subject with a POSITIVE UNCYNICAL approach with GOOD INFORMATION!"

I resonate with this. Good points. The cynical approach cannot win anyone over. Accusations are of course much worse.

But do note that I am hoping here for more insight into the lack of play that 9-11 revelations and investigation receive in, say, the Nation Magazine or Mother Jones and so on. The theories I mention above could provide starting points for investigating this. They are indeed circumstantially-based theories.

Aren't there journalists out there who could say just what sorts of pressures they faced in exposing 9-11 oddities? There may be more than a few who actually consult this website.