Support 911Blogger


Counterpunch Takes a step towards 9-11 truth

As someone who exchanged a few emails with Alexander Cockburn regarding 9-11truth, and became frustrated with his refusal to address evidence and/or research that brings into questions the government's 9-11 conspiracy myth, I was pleased to see that Counterpunch decided to print this Paul Craig Roberts essay. I'm going to send CP a thank you mote. ;-)

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-of-911/

Was Cockburn the main problem? Time may tell.

I have felt that same frustration with Cockburn and Counterpunch--immensely. Not only would they not cover 9/11 skepticism, there were times when Cockburn out and out disdained it and advised readers from involving themselves with it (this was entirely consistent with his previous dismissal of skepticism towards the Warren Commission's findings re the JFK assassination). I always find it so much more embittering when those who dismiss 9/11 truth are the same people whose commentary I otherwise find to be valuable.

Anyway, you may be interested in the following piece by Douglas Valentine, published shortly after Cockburn's death in July. Cockburn is no longer around to defend himself, and I don't mean to suggest that Valentine should have the last word about him; but it is a perspective on him that readers here might find worth a look (although I don't see why Valentine and Jeffrey St. Clair agreed--according to Valentine's recollections--that Mossad was the 'only' one who could have benefitted from 9/11):

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/6803

And while we're on the subject, here's a link to one of the rare examples of 9/11 questioning that ran in Counterpuch previously. I like it despite the author's view that inquiries into physical implausibiities won't help. I like it because it shows how just taking a moment to ask a few basic questions, even without delving much into details, should still be sufficient to make people realize just how seriously problematic the official story is:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/02/18/a-half-dozen-questions-about-9-11-they-don-t-want-you-to-ask/

I hope this latest article is an indication of a change in attitude such as you've suggested is possible. They've been running PCR's articles for some time, but typically have skipped anything of his that goes into disputing the official 9/11 story.

Hadn't seen those before

Thanks for the links.

Interesting

Glad to see the letter getting some exposure among those on the left side of the Property Party (RIP Gore Vidal).

Cockburn's approach to 9/11 was a good example of the staggering blindness that people exhibit when faced with hard truths. The Valentine article is revealing on that point and Cockburn's support for the ludicrous writings of Manuel Garcia emphasizes it.

After realizing that they were not willing to be straightforward and honest, I wrote this caustic response to Garcia. I was in a bad mood because my mother had recently died, but sometimes a bad mood is motivating.

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/garcia.html

My guess is that we'll never hear an apology from Garcia or Counterpunch now that the NIST hypotheses he supported, and his own ridiculous theories, have been abandoned. How many people have died in the meantime?

Their credo

As Valentine puts it:

'The “never apologize, never explain” philosophy of life is a weapon that serves only those in power. It negates the need for self-awareness and critical analysis....It is the fatal disease that has poisoned the leadership of the so-called America Left, and turned it into an army of egomaniacal opportunists.

Never hear a apology

why does this quote by german physicists Max Planck came to my mind?

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

Some sorta ego-problem?

Garcia

I read your response to Garcia a while ago, Kevin. Well done. ;-) I also exchanged a few emails with Garcia myself. Very frustrating. Like Alex Cockburn, he seemed to prefer insults and condescension over a discussion of the actual evidence and research, and would not answer specific questions. I see this time and time again in discussions with followers of the government's impossible 9-11 conspiracy myth. I'm sure you have, too. ;-)

Not really an olive branch from Counterpunch

"Indeed, Alex had wanted to publish a book where the Truthers’ best case scenario would be put to the test and thoroughly debated. So here you are, Craig, a present from the shade of Alexander Cockburn on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. –JSC"

First, the idea that Truthers should have to put forward their "best case" makes it sound like the burden of proof still rests with skeptics; in truth, it is defenders of the official story who should have to explain why they still believe it, despite years of Truthers providing reasons why it is false.

Second, this article from PCR hardly stands as the "best case" Truthers can or have put forward, even though it is framed as such by the Counterpunch editors.

I have to agree

My comment above was posted before I had read St. Clair's preface to Roberts' piece, which makes plain that their position with respect to the events of 9/11 'hasn't changed....' This instance, he says, is simply a 'present' to PCR. In short, he is basically saying that this should not in any way be construed as a change in their editorial stance on 9/11. Bummer!!