Letter To David Rovics About His 9/11 Comments

I posted this earlier on David Rovics' blog, and though it might be worth posting here...


David. I love your music, but I was quite disappointed when I read your 9/11 essay on Rabble.ca, and have been following your appearances on the web since then.

I wanted to ask you a couple of questions directly, and thought your blog would be the best place to do so.

First, I wanted to tell you that I was disappointed because I felt your article was written based on your emotions, and did not actually discuss any factual information. I understand and share your frustration regarding the abrasiveness of some 9/11 Truthers, but feel that your comments contribute to the divisiveness that many of us on The Left are trying to patch up.

After reading your article, it seemed quite clear to me that you had not examined the evidence of 9/11 fully, and when questioned on Kevin Barrett's radio show, you refused (or were unable) to name any of these "scientists" who have convinced you that those investigating 9/11 should move on to more "verifiable conspiracies". You source only the dubious Popular Mechanics article as your evidence (which has been completely refuted in the book Debunking 9/11 Debunking by Dr. David Ray Griffin). Can you name even one of these scientists? Can you explain how they convinced you?

I'd also really like a clarification on where you stand on re-investigating 9/11. There seem to be a few contradictions in your comments on the issue.

In your article, you seem to be attempting to convince those investigating alternative 9/11 theories that "there is nothing to see here, so move along". Yet, on Barrett's radio show you say you DO support a new investigation and that we need to find out the truth. This is a little confusing to some of us. Should we, in your opinion, give up our pressure for a new investigation (as you suggest in your article) or continue investigating (as you suggest on the radio)?

Also, I have read comments by a fellow who said he had correspondence with you, and that you said you agreed with acclaimed journalist Robert Fisk's position on the issue

Here is Mr. Fisk's opinion published in the Independent newspaper,

I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.

I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".


You have been quoted as saying "I agree with Fisk's article! much shorter than mine, too, and better..."

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396101.html?c=on (scroll down to comments)

Is this your comment? If so, how do you reconcile this with this paragraph from your article?:

When you do look beyond this mass of misinformation for real experts, you will easily find pilots who can discount the claims of the Truthers that maneuvering the planes into the towers was a particularly challenging thing for people with only a little flight training to pull off. You will easily find mechanical engineers familiar with the structural flaws in the design of the WTC that allowed it to collapse in the first place, and physicists who can explain why such large buildings would appear to be imploding as if in a controlled demolition, or why people on the scene would have thought they were hearing explosions, etc.

Again, many of us on The Left who support the 9/11 Truth Movement would appreciate a simple clarification of your position.

At the moment, many government apologists and defenders of the "official story" are using your article to support their argument that 9/11 Truthers are just a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists. If you truly do support a new investigation, and think that the truth about 9/11 is worth investigating, would you be willing to pen another essay to clarify the contradictions in your comments, and set the record straight?

Thanks for your time, and keep playin' those great songs!

David's appearance on Kevin Barrett's radio show can be heard here:


**UPDATE** April 24

It gets worse. I just received an email reply from Mr. Rovics which raises more questions than it answers:

hey dp,

thanks for writing. my main point isn't about whether everything lines up in the official story -- i don't support the official story, and i don't think i ever said i did. unless by "official story" we mean whether al-qaeda exists, whether osama bin ladin exists, whether 15 saudis and 4 other guys hijacked a bunch of airplanes, etc. but of course i don't buy the official coverup commission -- the point is, as fisk also says, that investigation would be nice. however, without it, the idea that some people know "the truth" and the rest of us are ignoring it, denying it, etc., seems to be the main gist of the "truth movement." the very name is problematic! i think even the more reasonable elements of the movement talk about what "the whole world knows." it sounds -- and often is -- fanatical. that's my point -- not that investigation is a bad idea, no, on the contrary, it's a very good idea! all kinds of investigations! but in the meantime, there are so many horrific crimes our government is currently committing, plenty awful enough to bring down any state in a truly democratic society. if 9/11 was an inside job, it's only one of many other horrific crimes. so why obsess about the questions that aren't yet answered and make all kinds of accusations against those who don't "believe" the "truth" that "the whole world knows" (not quoting you here, but most of the people who have emailed me in recent weeks)? i think it's a serious distraction. in the scheme of things, i actually don't care why wtc7 came down. i do care about who it was who killed several hundred thousand iraqis, and who it is who is responsible for poisoning our land, air and water and killing off the population of this beautiful planet -- but i know who has done these things, no further investigations needed.

anyway, i don't think i need to revise my essay, but i find it troubling how many people seem to think that because i'm rejecting the idea that we should be jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence about various things means that i'm agreeing with "the official story." altho nobody ever says exactly what "official story" means, or which officials we're talking about. i don't think there's anywhere in my essay where i say i like henry kissinger.

take care,

Nice letter, but...

With all due respect to the poster of this heartfelt letter, why should we give TWO HOOTS what David Rovics (cough!) thinks or writes about 9/11? Really, I am serious. He is insignificant. There are enough brainwashed and righteous lefties out there ridiculing us. Rovics is recycled BS. Period. At first I was ruffled by his rant, but then I just filed it under "I" for ignore. First of all, he is a musician and a questionably talented one at that. (Saw his pathetically weak performace at Kennebunkport, ME last summer.) Plus, he has obviously not looked seriously and read the details like most/all of us have done. So a red-faced "truther" got in his face? Is he so egocentric that he can't look beyond that annoying incident and in to 9/11 and what it has done to this dying democracy? Long ago I got a fortune in a cookie that said "To understand is to pardon" and ever since that day I have stopped to REALLY listen to what people have to say because I do not know it all and am willing to learn and gain empathy. Perhaps Dave should eat more Chinese food, be quiet, listen and learn.

I concur

Never heard his music, and whether his performance as a musician was weak or not hardly affects the validity of his words. And that's where I question this person, and ultimately the undo attention given him. I read the Rovics article and its follow-ups - but it really hit home during the Barrett interview that this person's knowledge about the facts regarding 9/11 is woefully deficient for somebody stating their position so publicly. Even when presented with simple proofs, he openly admits to his ignorance about the facts, and is too ready to give up his opinion to higher authorities - instead of trying to reason it through for himself. I recommend he should watch a few Richard Gage lectures, pick up a book or two by David Ray Griffin, take 5, smoke em' if ya gottem!