Howard Zinn's shocking reaction to a question about 911

(Posted at YouTube on October 23, 2008)

----------Buddy And Howard Zinn-------
Here Buddy Moore Independent Candidate for US Senate in Colorado asks world renowned peace activist Howard Zinn, who speaks out against "False Flag" Terrorism, about the events of September 11, 2001.


Just a quick note; Zinn was an early signer of this statement;

Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

He is a hell of a writer and historian, but his new stance on 9/11 is just plain wrong.

His Comment Was Indistinguishable From Chomskys

North Texans for 911 Truth
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site

"i don't care that much"

"i don't care that much"
the more i here this non-starter the more i realize that what these people are saying is: "even if it were true, good luck bringing charges against anyone"

in other words, they don't consider it worth their attention because the likelihood of charges being brought up is in their minds, unlikely.
and with a pelosi-run democratic congress, it's true that there's little chance of that happening under the current president.

this brings to mind two tactics: one, name a precedent, or a list of precedents, for criminal charges brought against individuals in any administration; say the nixon white house. two, stress that the nation was duped into war and loss of civil liberties through problem-reaction-solution synthesis ... and that we're likely to experience more false flag state-sponsored terrorism in the future if we let this go without prosecution.

It's not necessary to bring charges

It's only necessary to wake up the population, and Howard Zinn could help with that. To say he doesn't care is a cover for "I dont' have the humility to admit that I lack the courage for this fight."

When faced by the deep state

Howard Zinn flinched and reconsidered his public position.

I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

Just get him on the record calling for a new investigation and move on. He's not worth any more time of energy than that.

When the people lead, the leaders will follow.

We have much to do, brothers and sisters, let's get busier!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Tired of the gatekeepers? Do something about it:

Tired of the gatekeepers?

Senator Senator Mark Dayton says NORAD "lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people.”

Do something about it:
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

"Stop Who?" Howard Zinn asks

Well Mr Zinn pls do YOUR homework.
(edit- there was a typo here just changed "our" to YOUR as that was the original intent)

You seem grossly MINSINFORMED for a "historian".

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Classic diversion

Classic diversion technique.... . if you can not put your finger on the culprit.... even if you name a suspect they can dismiss you with a giggle and a shrug as they fall back into the protection of group think
Together in Truth!

the historian's pov

Governments use false flag provocations as catalysts for policies that probably wouldn't happen otherwise. Zinn no doubt knows alot about that. The few thousand lives lost on 9/11 hardly compare to the million plus dead in Iraq, the 2 million internally displaced, the 3 million externally displaced... the crime of the war outweighs the crime that started the war.

And the crime that started the war, 9/11, has been sufficiently covered up, muddied, wrapped in smoke, obscured by mirrors, tangled in disinformation, destroyed evidence, hearsay that from the historian's point of view it is very unlikely the skepticism and uncertainty will ever be overcome enough to satisfy what is necessary to bring those responsible to justice. The 1999 Martin Luther King trial pointed directly to government complicity in his assassination, and that vindication of truth passed with hardly a notice. I suspect the same will happen with this.

Should we give up? Not at all. Study should continue, document requests should continue, pressure should still be applied, justice should still be sought for the families of the dead. Our government should know that they will be held responsible for policies that allow false flag provocations, that we are watching. The truth movement has to take the long view, and to try to force history to record that this administration committed this crime against its own people in its desire to commit even greater crimes against humanity by its wars.

The more I research 9/11 the more it is absolutely clear there was complicity by some in our government. But if these bastards will not be brought to justice for rendition and torture, crimes against humanity that are well known by the public, and well documented, how can we expect them to be brought to justice for something so difficult to prove? The truth movement has to help rescue the true history of this period. That may be the most we can hope for.

Zinn, like Chomsky, may be a skeptic, but not of the likelihood our government uses false flag provocations. My reading of their statements are they don't have enough information to know conclusively, and so will not say. But this detail, the 9/11 attacks, in the broader sweep of history which includes crimes against humanity of monumental scale committed by our government, might be more like one additional drop of blood splattered on an already blood soaked garment.

I don't reckon this opinion will be very highly regarded, but these men are not fools and have a broad grasp of the history of the atrocities of this country.

Why pursue and expose the truth? Not important?

I believe the main reason for exposing the truth about the false flag attacks on 911, is that by doing so we reduce the effectiveness of governments using this tactic in the future.

Zinn talks about 911 being in the past so it isn't important to find out who did it.

This is the same man who wrote "A People's History Of The United States". He certainly felt it was important enough to write an excellent book setting the record straight on the revisionist history about everything from Columbus forward. He seems to be "truther" on all those subjects. So what gives?

To expose that Columbus was a brutal murdering scoundrel was important to Zinn. He didn't just focus on the results of what Columbus did because it was of greater importance. Was the proof for his claims about Columbus more irrefutable than the evidence available today about 911?

Do you see this as an inconsistency?

Expose the murdering scoundrels of today.


Sure it is important. For the reason you state, for the same reasons Pepper pursued the King case. I don't think Zinn would dispute that. It is difficult in this short clip, in answering a question from the audience at a podium to put it in its proper context.

Another commenter below warns against jumping to conclusions. This isn't a "with us or against us" proposition. We shouldn't make it out as such. The facts speak for themselves, and it is for all of us to come to our own conclusions about those facts. Zinn included. His endorsement of DRG's book is not trivial. That is a much better context to judge Zinn by, not a short answer from a podium. His answer from the podium may be disturbing to a lot of us, but it is certainly not the totality of his thinking about the false flags, 9/11, or how those things fit into the long history of our government's willingness to commit atrocious acts in the belief we will profit from them in the long run.


My God, a historian responding to a question about the single most pivotal event in our lifetime by saying "It's in the past. I'm not really that interested.." It's so ridiculous, it would almost be comical if it weren't so sickening.

On the other hand, I'm getting so accustomed to the old guard letting us down that it no longer demoralizes me.


What an absurd and indefensible position. The present government may have been complicit in the horrific death of thousands of its citizens but we don't need to concern ourselves with such matters! Those who applaud presumably agree, "that's right, we can't bear to think about it either."

initial applause

it sounded like the the initial applause was in support of a new independent investigation.

These people in audience are obviously confused

if they are clapping for both unless these are different people clapping for each statement, but it didn't sound like that to me. They are probably people who have the courage to face real issues but back down when told it is insignificant by their "leader".

Another one

Add another one: Chomsky, Lakoff, Pinker, Zinn... See my blog on "Dumbo."

What will HZ

say after the NEXT 911?

Bu$$ine$$ as U$ual for the Military Industrial Complex?

Uncle $am must be very pleased with nephew Howard Zinn toeing the party line.

Time for a Paradigm Shift people.

Don't be deceived yet again.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Zinn praises Griffin

From the first page of "The New Pearl Harbor":

"David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painsyaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration´s relationship to that historic and troubling event."
- Howard Zinn

That is why his response to the video is so shocking.

Howard Zinn seems to have been influenced to change his position on the previously "historic" but now "not that important" events of 911. I thought I remembered him saying something positive about the 911 Truth movement. I even remember telling others that Howard Zinn was on board. Maybe he has been Chomskyed.


Can we stop talking about the different aspects of 9/11 and get everyone to agree that:

"The truth about 9/11 is that we don't have the truth about 9/11"

maybe something else about the need for justice, investigation and find those responsible so we can reduce the risk in the future.

Friends of a murder victim? Want to forget who did it and the circumstances so we can just focus on the ramifications only?


Highly respected historian consigns history, and his legacy, to the dustbin. Hummm.

left gatekeeper

what else to say? i haven't even watched the video, i know already what zinn said.
when chomsky turned gnomsky with his comments about 9/11, i hoped that at least zinn
wouldn't do the same thing. i guess i was wrong. so, that leaves us only with amy goodman
who, after some time, stated that she supports a new investigation into the events of
9/11. i don't know about you guys, but i'm more disgusted by these left gatekeepers
than neocons themselves. with neocons you know where you stand. but these hypocrites
who usually talk highly about "important stuff", such as freedom of speech etc, are
becoming more and more disgusting because of their views about 9/11. damn it.
you can't even have a "view" about 9/11! it is more than obvious what went on.

remember - 9/11 is a huge event. it implicates everyone, including you and me. it is
a fresh start. and that's why even zinn or chomsky are saying what they're saying.
because they know that the truth about 9/11 must never get out. because if it does
it would mean that the civilization, as we know it, is gone. a new start. and it means
that democrats would have to take the blame for 9/11, and what's even more
important - take the blame for not doing anything at all.

that's why i am disgusted by zinn, chomsky and other leftists who have shown
their true face.

"wtf i hate all cops"

Zinn has written this

After 9/11, this administration systematically nurtured the fear of further homeland attacks to justify its own assaults on constitutional rights as well as social and environmental programs that protected "the people" but fettered corporate power and control.

David Ray Griffin's book "The New Pearl Harbor — Disturbing Questions About The Bush Administration and 9/11" asks "Were these tragedies simply the result of unprecedented failures and incompetence as the government maintains, or were there elements of foreknowledge and implicit welcome involved?" He attempts to answer this question, reviewing the facts, studying other possible interpretations of these facts, and observing the breakdown of the official story over time.

Griffin's status as a renowned theologian and his systematic approach to the documented evidence lend this work unique importance and authority. Although still shunned by the mainstream media, his book has already encouraged many thousands to debate the case for possible government complicity and at the very least to demand a full, transparent and truly independent public inquiry.

Democracy requires citizen vigilance, informed debate and official accountability. In that spirit, David Ray Griffin's book deserves to be widely read.

Jump to conclusions?

I would guess the tone of the questioner threw Zinn to some degree. If Zinn doesn't say he is 100% convinced of a CD false flag op that makes him a phony? This sort of "with us or against us" binary view is one aspect of 9/11 truth that really turns people off. I don't think Zinn literally meant he doesn't care. It sounded more like frustration.

OTOH, I read Michael Morrissey's book Conversations with Vince Salandria (which I highly recommend). I too haven't been able to figure out why someone like Chomsky refuses to question the JFK assassination or 9/11 in a manner consistent with his other analysis.

Salandria correspondence

That's nice to hear. Thanks!


call me crazy

i tend to side with barrie zwicker with his stance on mr. chomsky.
chomsky doesn't just write off 9/11 truth indiscriminately; he dismisses it much more broadly, like some kind of bully... like a true gatekeeper. i don't think this was zinn's response at all.

incidentally, i just watched chomsky's dig at the truth movement and he really sets up quite an elaborate denial: in one instance he minimalizes the crimes of the united states, britain, and france; and then in the next he underwrites the entire 9/11 operation by saying that they'd be "insane to try anything like that". his position is so preposterous that it can't avoid being highly suspect.

i think sheila is correct in her assessment on zinn, on the other hand: he's simply lacking the guts.

I have been a life long

I have been a life long democrat.  I now consider myself independent.  But in my experience, there are two groups of people who will not except the possibility that government complicity was involved in 9/11:  democrats and older people.  Zinn fits both.  Zinn has lost all credibility as an objective reporter of history. 
It is fascinating and remarkable that this historian is not interested in pursuing what happened regarding one of the greatest historical events in human history-that occurred in his own lifetime. Maybe his lack of curiosity is worse than apathy.

Imagine if your child was murdered, and you asked the chief of investigations if he is going to investigate the crime, and the investigator told you: "I think we should all just move on."

3,000 people were murdered on 9/11. Mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, etc. INVESTIGATE THIS MASS MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Howard Zinn

Sounds like what Noam Chomsky said a few years ago "Who cares?"
are these people being trained to have this standard response?

I forgot, history is not important

Wow! This is quite disturbing. Though not completely unexpected. There seems to be a general consensus or at least a momentum regaining traction on the institutional left to let it be. "That was so like seven years ago." Although I agree with LeftWright that we shouldn't be obsessed with any individual and should continue reaching out to all the individuals out there, this statement from Zinn, who had previously seemed to chart a more respectful and supportive course than Chomsky, when combined with the highly problematic recent "essays" by Dave Lindorff and Naomi Wolf, suggests we need to craft a strategy, rhetorical and otherwise, to reach and free those members of the currently kept left.

I can almost forgive, or at least understand the MO's of Wolf and Lindorff, but the man who wrote "the People's History of the United States" saying that history that is still in a fairly early stage of being understood and written does not matter to him is in fact a torturous denial of his entire career as a historian of the people. This is a man who staked out the crucial place for untold histories to be told and invisible aspects of the people's struggles to be brought into light. I guess it doesn't matter whether black folks voluntarily decided to take a cruise to the "New World" or not. I guess the matter of who brandished the shackles and who held the whips is a moot point now that we have a black president and are looking forward. Who still holds the whips? I guess it matters not whether Martin Luther King Jr. had his own killer hired so that he could have a holiday named after him. Remember Mr. Zinn, Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us that the arc of the moral universe is long but bends towards justice, but he also reminded us that there is such a thing as being too late. Strategy matters. Identifying the Achilles Heel of the wannabe oppressors matters.

The matter of whether those buildings were blown up or fell down, beyond being the important matter of claiming our own right to defining such a thing as "reality" or "history," has vast implications for now and the future, which you say you are more interested in Mr. Zinn.

I almost see that we should look at this almost as an intervention. The time of negotiating for support from the kept left of the most basic aspect of 9/11 truth, that we need and deserve the truth and that the truth is impactful, is over. It is time to take a moral and epistemological high ground, humbly taken yes, but a high ground nonetheless. We need to draw a line in the sand of reality. "Do you believe the narrative of the wannabe fascists/imperialists or not?"

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

Agreed, and well said!

I just don't think it particularly productive to flail against the icons of the left, especially now. Let them bask in the glow of their Pyrrhic victory until inauguration day when we should go out in public with signs demanding the repeal of the Patriot Act and its equally unconstitutional siblings, a real investigation into 9/11 and an end to the 9/11 wars.

Until Sen. Obama takes office we should quietly continue to educate the public at an increased tempo and then calmly critique the new administration as they make statements and set policy.

Of course, we should also rain emails, faxes, cards, letters, books and dvd's down on these people whenever possible, in a strategic and targeted manner for maximum impact.

We do need to develop some new approaches for the nodding off "left" and Sen. Obama will undoubtedly give us plenty to work with once he takes office.

Is the murder of 3,000 people and the injury to another 70,000 not important?

Is not a correct understanding of our recent history not important?

Is the curtailment of criminal corruption and the pursuit of justice not important?

Is the excuse for the illegal invasion and genocidal occupation of two countries not important?

As the bumper sticker says "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

The truth shall set us free, but we have to continually look for it.

Love is the only way forward, and it is often a steep uphill climb.

Here's Howard Zinn's

Here's Howard Zinn's comments about David Ray Griffin's New Pearl Harbour -

"David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."
— Howard Zinn

This is like a total 180,

This is like a total 180, he’s gone from being Howard Zinn to “Coward Zinn”, what’s wrong with him could it be the way the question was asked made him feel defensive? Or has he just been completely Chomskyfied?


I feel that the manner of questioning gummed up Zinn's response. The response is often a function of the question asked. Rather than being limited to a point of information, the question was one demanding participation and commitment, something which might require deliberation before a proper response is made. But the questioner wants a response right away. Still, Zinn's response is revealing, because by it he shows a reluctance to peer into the government's modus operandi that produced the two wars he objects to. The applause he receives is as baffling as his answer.

Zinn's Email

Might as well direct your comments to the man himself rather than the choir.

Disappointing turn of events considering Zinn's previous statements in support of 911 truth. Obama will likely continue the "war on terror" by upping the ante in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries. This is one of the many reasons why the truth about 911 remains a vital issue. I think I speak for everyone when I say that there's nothing we'd like more than to put 911 "behind us" -- just as soon as our rulers stop using the event (and other false flags) as a pretext to bomb, occupy and carve up the middle east while eliminating the few rights we have left.

If progressives who have dismissed or disparaged 911 truth imagine the issue will suddenly disappear in January they are in for a rude awakening. A central pillar of Obama's foreign policy (appears to be) control of Central Asia as per Brzezinski. Most important of all, 911 truth is key in preventing future false flag attacks -- and therefore the wars they justify. Elites will not abandon the tactic unless the vast majority is aware of it and refuse to buy what they're selling.


There are many people over the age of 75 who simply want to imagine that this isn't happening. If they don't look they don't have to tell. They just want to live out the rest of their days in peace. Even the ones who have been robbed of their standard of life just want to live and let live.

My 82 year old grandma is still swinging!!

She made me promise that I would come and get her first thing if anything were to ever happen.
Together in Truth!

I got the title wrong

Correspondence with Vincent Salandria. Anyone who wants to better understand 9/11 (even though the main issue discussed is the JFK assassination) should read your book.


Yep, it's available from Amazon. So is "Looking for the Enemy."

Re Zinn et al., I really do think they are just too stupid to get it (see "Dumbo in the Living Room" on my blog here or (with links). Dumbo is of course the military-industrial-intelligence complex. I sent copies to Pinker, Lakoff, and Michael Albert (no use me writing to Chomsky anymore) of ZNet. I don't think they'll reply, but if they do I'll let you know.

In sum: you can be a high and mighty scholar and still be stupid as all getout, and I don't mean that rhetorically. Stupid is as stupid does. It's taken me a long time to figure that out, and I promise to admit it if I'm wrong.

All the best,

It's symptomatic that...

... when he says "That's passed", people start to clap. (Surely they must be other people who clapped right after the question?)

At least he doesn't say that there was no conspiracy, like Chomsky. He says he doesn't know.

I find his question "To stop who?" at the end unbelievable. He doesn't khow who people like the questioner want to stop?

The question "stop who?"

is a good one. Fact is, I've heard in interviews truthers who, when asked who these people are who perpetrated 9-11, get all tongue tied. In fact, the big question of the movment is exactly how the entire scheme was pulled off, and exactly who issued orders, organized, etc. There's lots of evidence, but who has tied it together in a concrete way that would result in prosecutions in a court of law? How close is the movement to providing that kind of information or informed speculation?

zinn's idiocy

I think Zinn is just old and hasn't had the energy to research.
Anyone who researches knows the truth.

Check out my just-completed music video on revolution:

Now in subtitled versions:

Coming soon:

Jock Doubleday

LEFTWING Says it for me

Just get him on the record calling for a new investigation and move on... There are plenty of us willing to carry the torch , we already have academics that are not afraid to speak up and more are been added each year . The most important part of this movement is we have those (and you know who you are) not willing to let the crimes of 911 be forgoten so long as criminals are loose. I applaud you all for your perseverance and commitment to carry the torch for justice...with or with out Mr Zinn

Thanks, Richard

If anyone does ask Dr. Zinn for a clarification in public, please make sure to be civil and frame your question well, as his audience is who we really want to influence.


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Who done it?

We keep having this discussion. If it was an inside job, the president was responsible (even if he didn't know about it). Everyone in the chain of command who had to have known should be indicted along with him. This is the only reasonable way to approach the question of guilt, which is also the only way to find out "officially" what happened. As long as we play the cat and mouse game of trying to ferret out the "bad guys" ("rogue network," "deep state," etc.) we will get nowhere. I have been saying this for years. The resistance from within the "truth movement" comes from gatekeepers, whose ploy is "Not everyone in the govt is guilty"--which is true, but irrelevant. If Bush and Cheney are indicted, the others can be subpoenaed and indicted as well.

The answer to Zinn's question, then, is simple: Bush and Cheney.

Yall can't see the forest for the trees

Now don't get me wrong because I'm with yall and the work we're doing, but really in a way he's right. It is the past. While argument that it affects the reality of today is valid and important, it doesn't change the fact that it's a crisis that is over. Yes it's important that reality is what makes it into the history books. Yes it's important that the perpetrators of this crime pay for their actions. However it doesn't change the fact that the perpetrators of 9/11 got away with it. Regardless of how many people find out the truth, it's very unlikely that the perpetrators will ever be held accountable. While we can complain about the cover up and how the evidence was destroyed, it doesn't change the fact that the evidence was destroyed. It doesn't change the fact that the fox is in charge of security at the hen house. It doesn't change the fact that the perpetrators have more power and influence than any other group in the world. The PNAC boys have talked about how reality is what they say it is. Judging by how things have transpired I'd say they are correct. Sure we have circumstantial evidence out the wazoo, but we don't have the solid proof that we need and it's not likely that we ever will. I don't mean to poo poo your efforts, or my own for that matter. But when it comes down to it, we're fighting a lost cause. I'm not saying quit fighting, I haven't. I'm just saying that you might want to cut Howard Zinn some slack when he says this fight isn't important to him. 9/11 wasn't the greatest atrocity of the recent past. The fact that so many of you see it as so says a lot. To me it says that a lot of you think a US life is more valuable than a human life. Is it really so surprising that so many people, even suspicious ones, don't think 9/11 is important. 3,000 dead, and 70,000 sick from 9/11. In comparison to two wars of aggression it isn't all that important. Yes, had people known the truth about 9/11 prior to these wars it might have made a difference, but they didn't. Over 1,000,000 Iraqis have been murdered. Over 2,000,000 Iraqis have fled their homes, while another 2,000,000 Iraqis have not only fled their home, but have fled their country. And to top it off this is still occurring and those tallies are still growing. In summary I find no fault in Zinn's logic of focusing on this fight instead of ours in his priorities of importance. And i think it's wrong for him to be slandered for having different priorities than ours, when obviously his priorities are also valid. It seams to me that a lot of you think that by exposing 9/11 as a false flag event that it will have the effect of stopping false flag events from happening in the future. That's as stupid as the idea of the war on terror. False flag terrorism is a tactic, you can't declare war on a tactic.

Other way round

Your thoughts are probably similar to Zinn's et al. Only: Why don't THEY say it like this? That's Point 1.

Point 2: 9/11 is no more a "tactic" than Iraq, Vietnam, the JFK assassination, etc. You have to focus on something, and 9/11 is more politically explosive than foreign wars, but there is no reason why the opposition cannot be united on all fronts.

Point 3: We already have the case against Bush et al. for Iraq (Bugliosi). We still need a Bugliosi to put Griffin et al. into legalese.

But I suspect you know all this. So what is your point again? I know of no 9/11 truthers who say Iraq is not important. I fail to see how people (like you) who agree that Iraq is important can honestly argue that 9/11, which is what started the whole mess, is "history" or "unimportant."

To point one: Because he's

To point one:
Because he's an old man asked to clarify his views off the top of his head, while I have the luxury of composing my statement in a more graceful manner with more thought put into it.

To point two:
9/11 was a tactic, it was a means. Their tactic was false flag attack which they used as a means to achieving the end goal of support for imperial aggression into Afghanistan. Lying about danger and faking intelligence was the tactic which they used as a means to achieving the end goal of support for imperial aggression into Iraq. Lying about the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a tactic which they used as a means to achieving the end goal of support for imperial aggression into Vietnam.

You do have to focus on something, although I don't necessarily agree that 9/11 is more politically explosive than foreign wars. I think that Zinn prefers to focus on what he knows, and that was what he was trying to say. He doesn't know who specifically carried out 9/11 so he doesn't focus on it. He does know who was responsible for the war crimes committed against Iraq so he does focus on that. He's a historian, is it surprising that he doesn't spend a lot of his time in unprovable speculation? He reads the research, he's praised the works of David Ray Griffin, he doesn't buy into bogus propaganda. What more do you want from the guy? Does someone have to be a 9/11 activist to be worthy of some respect.

To point three:
I agree, but I don't think we're ever gonna get it The evidence is almost all circumstantial. The only two people who are close to caught red handed are Cheney and Jerome Hauer. Like a prosecuting attorney trying to bring down the mob, Zinn is sticking with his best case as his focus.

To point four:
I thought I was pretty clear on how people can see the situation that way. It's easy to see how it's history, because it is literally being a finished event. Just because people still carry the baggage doesn't make it an ongoing event. As far as unimportant, it just depends on how someone views things. If a person were to give equal value to all lives, you could see how Iraq with a death toll over 300 times greater and I'm sure much more in property destruction could be seen as much more important than 9/11. That's how I think Zinn sees it. And whereas 9/11 is an event from the past Iraq is an ongoing problem of the present and past and future, maybe he's sees dealing with Iraq is a more important use of time.
And really 9/11 didn't start this mess. This mess was started by the apathy and stupidity of the American people. We're the ones that allowed the Bush regime to steal the 2000 election. Mexicans revolted when their presidential election was fixed, but not us. We didn't do shit. We let a group of evil men walk into the white house. As soon as they took office they had already planned the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. We knowingly gave the keys to the nation to a bunch of crooks. To not expect them to commit more grand scale crimes was plain stupid. If Americans continue to behave like sheep they're going to keep getting fleeced.

Sorry I'm late

replying but I was away. I have to say I agree with you, which will not be popular on this forum. Still, one needs to take advantage of whatever momentum one has, and since 9/11 still has quite a bit, even judging only by the refusal of many to deal with it, it should be pushed. Yes, it was a tactic, but the tactic was so spectacularly devious, brutal and most importantly from a political standpoint, directed at us by our own leaders, that we can still hope that people will pay more attention to it than many other things.

Zinn may be old, but he's not uninformed. I put him in the same category as Chomsky, Pinker and Lakoff--I'd be interested in your comment on "Dumbo" (see my blog).