Does anyone here subscribe to Counterpunch? They are advertising the following story for subscribers:
Would someone please post the story?
Counterpunch is currently discussing a lot about conspiracy theories. Consider the following article "The American mind: When Historical Analysis is Reduced to Whim" by Hani Shukrallah. He develops three classical and purely semantic arguments to refute what he considers the most credible conspiracy theory he encountered to date. I suppose he discusses the arguments developped by the "Scholars for 9/11 truth". I propose the following refutations of these classic counter-arguments. Can you give me some feedback or impressions please ?
The first may be discounted as sheer pigheadedness. As soon as I learned of the attack on the World Trade Center twin towers, my first guess, accompanied by intense dread (I could already see the war of civilizations being launched), was that it was Bin Laden and Co. who'd done it. [...] Later developments, needless to say, seemed to amply confirm my initial guess. Your first argument is based on reminds of a post-traumatic stress.
In the wake of 9/11, you did accept as the truth the first "plausible" explanation of what might have caused this horrible event. Due to the strength of this initial stress, removing this based on faith explanation from your head is very hard, even with rational arguments such that: the official account cannot be true because such and such points are either self contradictory or contradictory with physics or beyond common sense. And indeed, you agree that this first argument is discountable as irrational, even tough you put it as a first item, which in itself reveals that this "faith based" argument is very important to you. You may conceal there is a fight between your guts and your head here.
In brief, this is a new article refuting some of our leading left gatekeepers, especially Alexander Cockburn's dismissal of our movement.
Ten Questions For 9/11 Coincidence Theorists
by Andres Karger
I often visit the CounterPunch.org site because I enjoy reading the many interesting articles I find there. However, on my last visit, I was somewhat surprised to see Alexander Cockburn’s article on “The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts,” which is a brutal assault on those who believe in the complicity of the Bush administration in the 9/11 attacks.
Not that I hadn't run across the “our-President-would-never-do-that” viewpoint before (which I do not claim are exactly Mr. Cockburn’s words). It’s just that the gullibility  of Alexander Cockburn and other such folks, and even more importantly, their total lack of inquisitiveness, about these criminal attacks are always a source of amazement to me.
[Continues at website.]
I found your posting to be highly persuasive in general for most people, whom I'm sure you're happy to serve. Yet your easy-ish dismissal of the inside possibilities (nay, probabilities) seems based on a rather innocent if not wholly ignorant understanding of how things can and often DO work. And in this case, 9/11, a far better explanation is reached beyond the box-cutter story by FIRST knowing possibility, and calculating the most likely probability. Come-on, you've heard this before.
I do not know who pulled-off "9/11", however the popular narrative happily stoked by Official-sounding reports and endless suggestions that it was 'solely the act of an outside aggressor, hell bent on the destruction of our freedoms', strains credulity and ultimately, believability. That's why every article like yours that continues to belie facts in-search of truth, makes me want to puke.
I certainly feel that my freedoms are currently suffering direct and very personal attacks, however old Binny and his boys could NEVER do what this domestic gang has been extraordinarily successful at by playing upon the whipped up fears of my more innocent and less cynical brethren citizenry.