Bridging the Psychological Gap

This is an entry from my personal blog: (Do not be alarmed, it is not entirely dedicated to 9/11, however, that was my impetus). After reading Phil Mole's article in , I felt compelled to fill in the gaps of Mole's piece.

Skeptics and Conspiracies

There is no consensus among skeptics, except by accident. And typically for different reasons. Skeptics are my people. I understand them. A real skeptic is not afraid to question authority, nor does a skeptic oppose an idea because it originates from an authority. Skeptics are professional doubters–not inclined to a supposition until reasons can substantiate it. It is the analysis of these reasons that sets critical thinkers apart from the advertising-prone masses.

Which is why it pains me to see skeptics defending the official narrative of the WTC collapses without turning a critical eye on the details at its core. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of “truther” theories concerning the various aspects, and let me be clear: several non-official theories are far more outlandish than the official story. For instance:

Stockholm syndrome (the water runs deep)

Stockholm syndrome
–noun Psychiatry.
an emotional attachment to a captor formed by a hostage as a result of continuous stress, dependence, and a need to cooperate for survival.

[Origin: after an incident in Stockholm in 1973, during which a bank employee became romantically attached to a robber who held her hostage]

Overcoming Individual Denial to 9/11 Truth Radio Show with Carol Wolman, Ken Jenkins, Chuck Millar

(Part One of a Two Part Series on Denial, Part Two will be on Overcoming Collective Denial to 9/11 Truth)

Carol Wolman, MD

Ken Jenkins

Chuck Millar

Listen Monday, June 9th, 2008, 10 pm- midnight (CST) to Questioning War-Organizing Resistance on the and to our guests- Carol Wolman, MD, Ken Jenkins, and Chuck Millar on Overcoming Individual Denial to 9/11 Truth.

California Impeachment Slate Candidates Running for Congress Press Conference in San Francisco

MC Brad Newsham (Challenging Barbara Lee)
(Photos by Tian Harter. More at

(This photo from flip side of key sign.)

How to respond to a "classic hit piece"??

Caught this on Counterpunch this morning, and started reading, but then its core dishonesty became tiresome, so I thought I would offer it for dismantling and public response (his email address is at the bottom).

Britain's 9/11 "Truth Movement": Who's Responsible?


As the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks passes the 9/11 conspiracy industry shows no sign of decline. While most adherents to the various conspiracy theories reside in the United States and the Middle East, the conspiracy circus - or "the 9/11 truth movement" as it styles itself - is an increasingly visible presence in the UK. Initially an internet based affair, the UK conspiracy advocates have developed national and local campaigning groups who organize public meetings, teach-ins and film showings and they have become a visible and vocal presence at anti-war demonstrations. Their most high-profile supporter and organizer in the UK is David Shayler, the former MI5 operative and recent converts to the cause include the journalist Robert Fisk and gay rights and anti-war activist Peter Tatchell.


For those who watch "REAL TIME" with Bill Maher have come to know him as a complete hypocrite when it comes to the government and 9/11. On one hand he constantly bashes the administration (and rightfully so) and lets everyone know who listens to him that he dislikes the president and the GOP. He does however choose to remain completely ignorant or in a state of denial that this government could have had anything to do with 9/11. This was made completely clear at the tail end of his show's most recent episode

More From JoAnne from Counterpunch

Joanne wrote:

I didn't respond to the Piazza Fontana example because I am not familiar with it. Agents provocateurs working for US intelligence and planted in left organizations in the 60s proposed and possibly executed bombings then too. That doesn't prove your point that the US government planned and executed attacks designed to destroy perhaps the most iconic symbols of capital, the Twin Towers, plunge NY's economy and the financial sector into crisis, kill thousands of people, bankrupt the airlines, etc. etc. That's just New York. It also doesn't prove that thousands of people involved in the crime have for five years maintained an iron silence.

Yes, I know about Clarke and also know how Condi Rice responded to that in testimony. I'm not sure of the veracity or context of the Bush quote, but having a report saying Bin Laden wants to attack the US also doesn't contradict my point of incompetence, indifference, hubris and perhaps opportunism akin to that of FDR, who had warnings of a Japanese attack but didn't figure on the destruction of the US Pacific fleet.

This is my fundamental political problem with the "nutters" (your word, not mine): by suggesting some special monstrosity in the Bush administration they deflect from the average-old monstrosity of US foreign policy, decade in decade out, regardless of the party in power. There is essentially no antiwar movement, essentially no element organized powerfully to press for a reverse in foreign policy, in economic policy, no organization on the left worth a damn. In the void there are conspiracy theorists. Your point is, Why not encourage them? I think they have encouragement enough and certainly shouldn't be beyond critique because of grieving families.