The official student newspaper of UWisc-Eau Claire since 1923: "New campus organization of 9/11 ‘truthers’ is misinformed"

New campus organization of 9/11 ‘truthers’ is misinformed

James Kust
May 3, 2012

On Sept. 11, 2001, this country  changed forever.

There’s no overstating it. It’s the day that bumped George W. Bush’s approval rating above 90 percent, the day that united our country in a display of patriotism not seen since World War II.

Sept. 11 shifted our nation’s domestic and foreign policy permanently, and was responsible for starting a War on Terror that is still deploying thousands of young men and women.

Ten years later, we’re still trying to understand what happened that day.

And from this lack of understanding comes confusion.

As many know, there exists a noteworthy movement that claims the events of 9/11 were an “inside job” — a purposeful act orchestrated by our government and special interest groups designed, depending on who you ask, to increase oil revenues or seize foreign lands, among other claims.

These so-called “truthers” have arrived at UW-Eau Claire.

On Monday night the Student Senate unanimously approved the constitution for a new student organization — Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: College Outreach Team.

According to the organization’s parent website, their mission is to “research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation.”

A disclaimer: I’ve lived in Wisconsin all my life. I didn’t know anyone involved in the 9/11 attacks. I’m not an engineer or an architect. But I can’t help but be vehemently opposed to everything this organization stands for.

To imply that our government would stoop so low, that our leaders are so driven by greed that 2,996 deaths are simply collateral  damage can only be described as offensive.

It’s offensive to every family member and friend of those who lost their lives that day, and it’s offensive to Americans who, naively or not, exercise a degree of faith in those who lead them.

Defaming this tragedy by dragging everyone involved in it through the dirt is a tragedy in and of itself.

But as strongly as I’m opposed to this organization’s intentions, I feel even more strongly about something else — our nation’s First Amendment. There’s no law, thankfully, that prohibits this College Outreach Team from existing.

They are free to organize here and use student fees here and spread their message here. That message — no matter how much I personally disagree with it — is protected by law. I respect that right, and when this organization becomes active on campus, I urge you to respect it as well.

I happened to be in New York City this January, and had the privilege to visit the 9/11 Memorial at Ground Zero. There are nearly 3,000 names etched into stone, shaped to mimic the foundations of the original World Trade Center, now filled with water that flows continuously throughout.

In busy New York City, in the middle of the work day, this small patch of ground was silent, as people simply remembered.

No matter your position on how the events that day unfolded, it’s important that we remember: that we remember those whose lives were lost, that we remember everyday people who ran into burning wreckage without a second thought, and that we remember the constitution that defends our right to make our opinions known.

So long as we remember, this country will continue to be the great one it is today.

Comments under story:



"To imply that our government would stoop so low, that our leaders are so driven by greed that 2,996 deaths are simply collateral damage can only be described as offensive." I assume that the gentleman is troubled by the number. Now the million plus deaths of Iraqis does not trouble him, one supposes. How about the five or six deaths from the anthrax that came from a government lab, or the six deaths from the WTC 1992 bombing? Is it the number of deaths that indicate the level of greed? Why should the call for a public inquiry offend this gentleman? I would think family members would welcome it. But of course the tragedy extends far beyond family members. The immediate pain suffered by a small portion of the population is shamelessly manipulated by this man and others to obfuscate the broader hurt that the events of 9-11 inflicted on all of us.

Nicely Written

Did you send that to the paper? It is well put and succinct. I have to wonder about the purpose of the emotional appeal of this gentleman's non sequitur describing the quiescence of the reflecting pool at the 9/11 Memorial.

The comments

The comments section of the linked article are heartening. The word is getting around.


Yes, lots of good ones. Here's a brief excerpt from one I thought was particularly good (posted by Andrew Steele):

'I know the tube and our educational system brands the idea in our minds that only people with funny accents are capable of doing evil…but give me a break. Power attracts those who want it the most, and those who get it are the ones who are willing to do the most (and the worst) to get it. That’s true in every nation, including ours.'

Bronze, not stone

"There are nearly 3,000 names etched into stone, shaped to mimic the foundations of the original World Trade Center, now filled with water that flows continuously throughout."

Bronze, actually, -not stone. It makes me wonder if the gentleman actually was at the WTC memorial.

Are ideas false because they are offensive?

"To imply that our government would stoop so low, that our leaders are so driven by greed that 2,996 deaths are simply collateral damage can only be described as offensive."
James Kust

"When any opinion leads to absurdities, it is certainly false; but it is not certain that an opinion is false, because it is of dangerous consequence. Such topics, therefore, ought entirely to be forborne; as serving nothing to the discovery of truth, but only to make the person of an antagonist odious."
David Hume

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."

The official account of 9/11 is an absurdity and it has led to many atrocities.

More 'exceptionalist' idiocy

Article 2 Section 4 of the US Constitution:
'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'

That's right, they included 'treason.' The founders of the U.S. republic did not at all consider it unthinkable that high officials of the government which they were establishing might one day commit treasonous acts. Nor did they expect future congresses to consider it unthinkable either. Nor did they set limits upon what forms such treason might conceivably take.

But of course, the media establishment of today does consider it unthinkable, and are prepared to hurl all kinds of insults at anyone who even raises the possibility of treason by the U.S. government against its own citizenry. And this U. of Wisconsin toady is simply following in their footsteps.

This is the usual 'American exceptionalist' idiocy, which the insights of even the most revered thinkers of the past are incapable of penetrating.


Incredulity is not an argument.

Who is uninformed

This labeling of the "truthers" as uninformed is another example of illogical, narrow-minded, uninformed citizens refusing to dig for the truth and demand a scientific, thorough crime scene investigation and subsequent accountability. To me, this refusal is the problem. Thank you to 911blogger, ae911truth and many others for your dogged pursuit of the truth! It took 40 years for the truth about the false flag terrorism commited by our government in Viet Nam that cost us 50,000 plus lives of our own soldiers. Would our government do that? Yes

To James Kust - I hear your pain, but this WILL NOT GO AWAY

Fact is the controversy surrounding the events of 9/11 is vary painful and hard to deal with for most folks - My sister (from Canada) surprised me last year after she and her husband visited ground zero for the first time, She said " I can no longer support your work in the 9/11 truth movement", she said "Even if it were true, the government being involved, I don't want to know about it!" She added "It's TOO BIG to comprehend , to believe a government would allow such a tragedy to happen to it's own people" Over my 5 years as a full time 9/11 truth activist, I have heard that same reasoning time and time again " I don't want to know" even from the strongest of men during my 9/11 truth actions. I decided to respect my sister, and these strong men their views, and no longer concern them with my work.

Regardless of those not willing to deal with the truth behind 9/11, world-wide polls show an ever increasing doubt to the official 9/11 story and this momentum will never cease until a independent public investigation is conducted, and those responsible for 9/11 are brought to justice. When I first became a 9/11 truth activist in the winter of 2007, I started out with a bull-horn and marched down the avenue with friends carrying placards, screaming and yelling at the top of my lungs "9/11 WAS A INSIDE JOB!" In 2012 my approach has completely change as to how I bring the message of 9/11 truth into my community...

"Burgers, Cheese Burgers, Hot dogs" and my 9/11 Truth Civil Information actions

I would treat James Kust with the up-most respect, and defend his right to his opinion, even though I cannot agree!

Admirable tenacity

Some really good quotes in there. I also like what you said to that group of anti-poverty activists towards the end: 'There's two sides to every story, then there's the truth.'

Definitely a more effective approach than bullhorning.

(I have to admit, 'up-most respect' is new to me. I always heard 'utmost respect.')


Thanks rm

I added my comment since it was a University Publication:

This is what I contributed

Mr. Kust:
after introducing this “movement” as one making claims of “inside job… orchestrated by our government” you qualify your references to these and “other claims” with the phrase “depending who you ask”.

You do not make reference to whom these and other claims depend upon, but, by lumping Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth with a jumble of “dependings” and “other claims” you don’t do justice to what propounds in any way.

Though you quote their mission is to “research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation” you distort what they actually claim by saying you’re “vehemently opposed to everything” for which they stand; by more-than-strong implication, you claim they impute the government would stoop so low to cause the deaths of 9/11.

They do no such thing.

Their references to government and statements are to establish the apparently false, contradictory and/or clear impossibility of the government’s so-far unsubstantiated theory of the destruction of the towers and WTC – with substantive evidence of their own.

They in no way theorize, as this piece claims from ill-researched inferences and apparently uninformed knee-jerk reaction to the mere use of “9/11″ and “Truth” in the same phrase, the government “orchestrated” or was directly involved. They refuse to “theorize”; they ask questions, present the contradictions, and make the case for actual investigation into the destruction.

You contradict yourself again if we can compare your own statement, “It’s offensive to every family member and friend of those who lost their lives that day”, to what we can read prior to your quote from their website: “Our work at AE911Truth is dedicated to the victims, families and all others throughout the world affected by the tragic events.”

Another fact to consider: the families themselves started the 9/11 Truth movement and called the government’s *entire* theory into doubt, not just the fall of the buildings, which is something is unwilling to do themselves without evidentiary basis. Their work is simply to support the victims’ friends and family members own search for the truth – through their evidence and the laws of physics.

Despite your contradictory, unsubstantiated and obfuscatory statements – or probably because of them – you converge into a poetic juxtaposition of “being at Ground Zero” this year and naive Patriotism to cover your lack of research and ability to distinguish between “truthers” and an association of science-based sceptics.

Your “opinion” in some way crystallizes many things which “changed forever” on Sept. 11, 2001.

Beyond a moment of sadness mixed with brief, undeserved patriotic absolution, it demonstrates we don’t need goons dressed as soldiers and police using bullets and batons to censor and silence the people, all we need is a press and media who don’t do justice to the principles of journalism.

Too frightening to believe

I have this problem habitually with friends and family members when I present them with the overwhelming evidence of what really happened on 9/11.

They simply refuse per se to consider that our government could have been complicit in 9/11.

They don't challenge what I say and show them...they simply say that this is circumstantial and that we have always had conspiracy theories.

I have not lost respect in their eyes. They simply conclude that I am "overdosed" on 9/11 research and no longer able to appreciate the BIG PICTURE.

You know, they may be right in the sense that until recently I failed to see one element of the big picture.

I dismissed any possibility that Mossad was involved.

Not any more. Right now the good money in my view is that Mossad carried this off.

Since some of my friends are Jewish, I guess I better shut the hell up or I will be in even deeper "do do" than I am right now!

The 9/11 Truth Movement is the most inspiring effort to bring the truth to the American people of any effort in my lifetime...and I'm 66 years old. I cannot express adequately my thanks to all of you!