By Justin Elliott
Wednesday, Sep 7, 2011
The Truthers are wrong, but the fact remains the government isn't telling us the whole story
No small part of the public discourse surrounding Sept. 11, 2001, has been polluted by Truthers -- those who believe that the attacks were an "inside job," or that World Trade Center Building 7 was destroyed in a "controlled demolition," or that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, despite no compelling evidence for any of these theories.
Perhaps the most corrosive effect of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that they have distracted attention from real unanswered questions about the attacks.
Here, we look at some of the most important of those questions. This is not meant to be a comprehensive list.
What's in the famously redacted 28 pages?
June 16, 2010
Increasing Threats To The 9/11 Truth Movement
By Bill Willers
The Association of Right-Wing Bedwetters presents: 5 compelling reasons not to hold terror trials in New York City
This Modern World ~ http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/11/23/tomo/index.html
5 compelling reasons not to hold terror trials in New York City
Comments can be found here:
Aug. 27, 2009 | So yet another Bush administration Cabinet-level official has petitioned to get his conscience and reputation back. This time, it's Tom Ridge, former secretary of Homeland Security. The one-time Pennsylvania governor admits in a new book that he felt political pressure from the White House to issue bogus terror alerts before the 2004 presidential election.
Big surprise, right? By 2004, anybody who didn't grasp that crying wolf was the Bush/Cheney administration's basic game plan was probably also astonished last January when the "Texas cowboy" who's never been seen on a horse chose a Dallas mansion over his beloved ranch. Golly, who's doing all that brush-cutting?
An emerging progressive consensus on Obama's executive power and secrecy abuses - Glenn Greenwald
"In the last week alone, the Obama DOJ (a) attempted to shield Bush's illegal spying programs from judicial review by (yet again) invoking the very "state secrets" argument that Democrats spent years condemning and by inventing a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim that not even the Bush administration espoused, and (b) argued that individuals abducted outside of Afghanistan by the U.S. and then "rendered" to and imprisoned in Bagram have no rights of any kind -- not even to have a hearing to contest the accusations against them -- even if they are not Afghans and were captured far away from any "battlefield." These were merely the latest -- and among the most disturbing -- in a string of episodes in which the Obama administration has explicitly claimed to possess the very presidential powers that Bush critics spent years condemning as radical, lawless and authoritarian.
I posted a link to my article on Glenn Greenwald's blog on Salon last night, and Greenwald has replied with this comment:
"None of what you wrote or accuse me of has anything to do with what I think. I never said I know who perpetrated the anthrax attacks because . . . I don't know, because . . . I haven't seen the evidence. What I have seen is unconvincing, but I find people like you who just invent theories without facts and then think you've discovered Truth to be exactly the same as those who blindly believe whatever the Government says."
All I want from him is an explanation, as I said here:
On August 3, 2008, Glen Greenwald wrote in Salon:
"It is so vital to emphasize that not a shred of evidence has yet been presented that the now-deceased Bruce Ivins played any role in the anthrax attacks, let alone that he was the sole or even primary culprit."
Now, in his retraction, er, update from yesterday, he writes:
The FBI (Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity, ha!) was tasked by our shadow government overlords with finding a semi-plausible fall guy for the anthrax attacks of 2001. These overlords engineered both the attacks of 9/11, and the anthrax attacks that followed, to create a pretext for a police state in the USA, as well as a semi-plausible pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
The FBI has pinned it on the late Dr. Bruce Ivins, but almost nobody believes it. For the past two days FBI director Mueller, looking like the cat that ate the canary, has been appearing before the Senate and House to answer questions.
Glenn Greenwald wrote about both events in Salon. Based on his account, I feel certain that the FBI is going to get away with it.
911 Plotters Bury the Evidence
by Michael Green
Aug. 3, 2008
What strikes me most is that this (probably genuine) suicide is designed to put a lid upon the conspiratorial facts. The August 1, 2008 Wall Street Journal reported and opined:
"The Justice Department hasn't yet decided whether to close the investigation, officials said, meaning it's still not certain whether Dr. Ivins acted alone or had help. One official close to the case said that decision was expected within days. If the case is closed soon, one official said, that will indicate that Dr. Ivins was the lone suspect."
I assure you that the Journal is the ghost of our fascist future talking, with Dr. Ivins playing the role of lone nut so certified by both his social worker therapist and his psychiatrist. But the facts say otherwise.