The Truth About the 9/11 "Truth" Movement

[DroppinScience]

This is a pretty good article:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/07/8126/

Here's a quote I found particularly striking from the article.

Misguided attacks on alternative media

The “9/11 Truth Movement” undoubtedly is made up largely of earnest, decent people. Since thousands of their fellow countrymen and women died on 9/11 and since this event, many people in many communities have become justifiably agitated and outraged by world-scale injustices, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and so on.

The particularly warped thing about this, though, is that the very media outlets, authors and activists who are doing their best to expose the very real conspiracies that are going on - people like Amy Goodman and Democracy Now!, David Barsamian’s Alternative Radio, Z Magazine, Norman Solomon and the Institute for Public Accuracy, Noam Chomsky, etc. - seem to have become the primary targets of harassment by the Truthers.

Goodman, Chomsky, Solomon and others are now regularly heckled at speaking events, and denounced on websites as “gatekeepers.” They are seen, it seems, as being even worse than the corporate media, because while reasonable people know not to trust Fox or CNN, they have faith in the integrity of people like Amy Goodman.

You don’t have to know Amy Goodman or her producers personally to see what nonsense this “gatekeeper” stuff is. You needn’t ever have met Amy to know that she has risked her life, and very nearly lost her life, in her decades-long efforts to report the truth. You needn’t know her producers personally to recognize that these are all earnest young progressives working long hours to create a daily news program they deeply believe in. The notion that all of her producers are somehow maintaining a code of silence in exchange for the privilege of having their names mentioned at the end of the broadcast, or in exchange for their nominally middle-class salaries, is preposterous.

You know something is VERY fucked up when the likes of Chomsky or Amy Goodman are heckled by 9/11 "truthers." :rolleyes:

[alien autopsy]

i would never heckle goodman or chomsky. they have done a lot of good.

it bothers me that people who dont believe in the 9-11 truth movement group and stereotype all skeptics of the official theory- calling them "truthers". there is no representative. there are lots of different typs of people *many within our own government and major media outlets, people from all walks, in all positions all over the world, who believe that the official story is weak. there is no mold, and no need to steroetype.

its just another means to discredit and alienate people who are seeking truth.

[Schmeltz]

The only experience I have with truthers is on this board, but they certainly all seem to fit the mold as far as I'm concerned. It's a mold fashioned from a minimal ability of critical discernment, a malformed understanding of what constitutes actual research and rational thought, a profound egoism stemming from a conviction that spending time online makes you smarter, and, at worst, a profound detachment from reality.

[fucktopgirl]

^ Oh god...:rolleyes:


Anyway, i don't know what really happen, but one thing for sure, there is lies that surround that day, Obviously. For what exactly, not sure, must have something to do with power/money. And about people harassing Chomsky and the likes, well extremists are everywhere.

[alien autopsy]

The only experience I have with truthers is on this board, but they certainly all seem to fit the mold as far as I'm concerned. It's a mold fashioned from a minimal ability of critical discernment, a malformed understanding of what constitutes actual research and rational thought, a profound egoism stemming from a conviction that spending time online makes you smarter, and, at worst, a profound detachment from reality.


you are the embodiement of "profound egoism" schmeltz.

[alien autopsy]

thought this was pertinent :) (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/76782)

[alien autopsy]

(click the smiley)

[kaiser soze]

What upsets me is that there are people who believe what this administration has told them with the evidence of lies throughout their time in office during this presidency and others prior.

[DroppinScience]

Here is another quote from this essay that I feel needs to be highlighted:

The truth - that, for example, the CIA funded and armed Al-Qaeda and the Taleban, that a tiny minority of very wealthy people control much of the U.S. government and the “mainstream” (corporate/”public”) media, that the U.S. military systematically goes around the world overthrowing democracies, propping up dictatorships, and killing millions of people with bombs - is what the progressive media is reporting on hourly, daily, weekly or monthly. These are the truths that people in the U.S. most need to “wake up” to. These are the truths that are systematically unreported or severely under-reported by the corporate press, which, even in the age of the Internet, is still where the vast majority of people in the U.S. get their news, and thus, their understanding of the world.

These corporate media entities and the genocidal, ecocidal plutocracy they serve are the “gatekeepers” that need to be exposed. The truths they are trying to hide from us are the truths that need to be understood, and acted upon. The progressive media that is trying to do just that needs to be supported, not undermined with essentially baseless accusations (legitimate criticisms and suggestions notwithstanding).

The people who are trying, with some degree of success, to undermine these basic endeavors of the progressive movement and the progressive media need to be exposed for what they are - whether they fall into the category of well-meaning but misguided fanatics or undercover government agents quite purposefully and systematically working to spread disinformation and sow confusion and distrust. And, beyond any reasonable doubt, the “Truth Movement” contains both of these elements.

To both of these groups I beseech you - wake up! Wake up to the real, easily verifiable conspiracies - which are extremely big ones - and quit trying to distract us with all the nonsense about gatekeepers and controlled demolitions!

[alien autopsy]

asking people to stop heckling progressive media outlets is one thing. asking them to ignore the evidence of controlled demolition because we should be focusing on the "real conspiracies" is another.

this is right along the lines of what some here frequently fall back to when it comes to arguments on 9-11. they ask, "why dont you focus on the real problems"

every cause is necessary, and surely, the release of factual information regarding 9-11 is one of them. so is protesting for the iraq war. for tibet, for mumia, for human rights. every cause seeking truth and justice has its purpose. its the foundation of democracy.

this article is confusing, and perhaps meant to be so. on one hand, they praise 9-11 investigators, and then on the other, alienates them and seeks to discredit telling them to stop focusing on nonsense like controlled demolition.

[DroppinScience]

this article is confusing, and perhaps meant to be so. on one hand, they praise 9-11 investigators, and then on the other, alienates them and seeks to discredit telling them to stop focusing on nonsense like controlled demolition.

Did you read the entire article (not just the snippets I quoted, but the whole thing -- in addition, if you click my link you can see the original article printed in its entire form on a blog website)? In essence, he's saying that the "truth" movement is doing more harm than good. Many of the questions have already been addressed, yet the truth of what happened is not really the "truth" the "truth" movement is interested in hearing.

And "controlled demolition" is easily one of the dumbest allegations 9/11 theorists have had.

[alien autopsy]

i have seen plenty of evidence supporting a controlled demolition.

i didnt read the article because im not really interested in it. i know why you posted it, i disagree with what you're saying

[DroppinScience]

i have seen plenty of evidence supporting a controlled demolition.

i didnt read the article because im not really interested in it. i know why you posted it, i disagree with what you're saying

I think you would do well to read the article in full. And it should interest you to know that the author of that article wrote the song "Reichstag Fire," which asks questions on 9/11 and has been embraced by the "Truthy" movement. So that's where he's coming from in writing the article.

[Carlos]

interesting if not somewhat confusing read..

I feel his own confusion and resulting anger about the whole subject is being projected at the whole 'truth movement' - whatever that may be :rolleyes:

I can associate with plenty of the article, however it's almost self-defeating; his point boils down to - criticising people for creating division and to focus on what is important; working together to bring greater justice and peace to the planet. But he is creating more division by his rather rash conclusion: that all the major questions have been answered...

....this is his main thrust, and so from his perpective talking about control demo and such things are a waste of energy in defeating the corporate monster.

But this is patently incorrect. The BIG q's have yet to be answered by the 911 Commission, NIST, FEMA, or Popular Mechanics: which he links to as a good source of science.. lol.. hmm, not one members of the popular mechanics team who wrote the 911 article & books have any relevant scientific background. Or show anything like good science - and their arguments have been clearly debunked by David Ray Griffin as well as others. Not to mention they have been proved lying about one of the authors being a cousin of Neo-Con Michael Chertoff.. not to be trusted, or used as a reliable source basically.

Essentially he agrees strongly tat 911 as been used to benefit the elite that control our media/oil/and military.. but is unwilling to accept that this elite could have a hand in it; based on his seemingly limited knowledge of the arguments.

Where i strongly agree with him - and this goes back the main essence shall we say of the article - that division will get us; and by us I mean ordinary hardworking, aware, and caring people, anyone who fights for injustice and truth, whatever it may be.. it will get us NOWHERE..

As he says division empowers the elite, our strength and ability to change the world derives from the willingness to work together. To not jump to conclusion about someone else depending on their views.. that's why it is beyond me the resistance to engage in the main issues on this board by so many - but instead fall back on wild assertions, hypotheticals, and finally insults...

I do not condone or support heckling, and such overt tactics - as it is in no way getting across any meaningful message except desperation.. Demonstrating peacefully though is totally different, and i would encourage anyone to do it for whatever reason they see fit.

As to chomsky, well he wrote a viscous article regarding 911 conspiracy theorists, even though he neglected to admit that the official story by definition is one too :).... (it was as if Smeltz had written it himself - i'm sure he'll take it as a compliment ;))
So therefore he is acting like a gatekeeper in exactly the same way as a FAUX news anchor: A person in power limiting knowledge and investigation of a whole sbject based on his personal assumptions. Even though heckling is really not any way to react - just pull him up on his blatent ignorance of the facts...

[Carlos]

Hey DroppinScience..

Maybe as I had the courtesy to read the whole of your article and constructively comment on it. You would be prepared to read this article (http://911blogger.com/node/15081)

You can either read the peer reviewed scientific article in the blog link provided above: which gives some background to it, or here is the direct link to the artcile published on the The Open Civil Engineering Journal (http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm)
(follow the 2008 link, and scroll down to the ' Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction')

So instead of wasting our energy on nebulous 'ideas' as to whether or not our energy should be spent on, arguably the most catalyzing event in all our living memory, instead logically we should spend our time on what we can discuss with meaning - i.e the science of the event.

I don't expect you to read it all (or even bother to properly read this post probably), but what is of importance: even if you are unwilling to get into the specifics is that finally a paper has been peer reviewed and published in an independent scientific journal.

Also as a side note one paragraph in the Prof. Jones' blog (first link above) is this:
Professor Chomsky wrote to several, who passed it on to me:
“You, or anyone who agrees with you, has a very simple task. Since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers… To date, no one has been willing to submit an article -- at least, after probably hundreds of inquiries to Truth Movement advocates, no one has been able to mention one...”Would someone who has received this note from Prof. Chomsky please send him a copy of the downloaded paper? Perhaps we can build a bridge with him. You might note that the paper is published in a “technical journal [one of those] in civil engineering,” to use his own words, which I took as sort of a challenge. I have published before in Nature (e.g., May 1986 and April 1989) AND Scientific American (July 1987), and this paper in a civil engineering journal I consider to be a very significant step in the history.


..problem is that many hide behind the shield of science, but truly objective scientists are hard to come by... lets see if Chomsky is one of these such people.

[DroppinScience]

That article is an interesting development. Looking at the abstract, it looks like that peer-reviewed journal article agrees with a lot of what FEMA/NIST/911 Commission findings but has some points of difference as well. Fair enough, but that isn't something I'd put in the "conspiracy" or "truther" mill, but someone actually interested in knowing the facts, and not just bits and pieces of innuendo that could fit into the desired narrative of the CT.

I'd like to quote to you Ron Rosenbaum's differences between an investigative reporter and a conspiracy theorist. This deals with the JFK assassination, but it's pertinent for any other event theorists latch on to:

Talking with Garrison, I sensed from his tone of voice he had the thing that distinguishes conspiracy theorists from actual investigators and investigative reporters. He had that tell-tale, know-it-all, condescending tone. That if-you-only-knew-all-I knew, if-you-only-knew-the-big-picture, you-couldn't-handle-the-truth tone.

http://www.slate.com/id/2167466/

It's that kind of BS that people like Chomsky and Rovics have to contend with.

[Carlos]

Well yes the thrust of the article is to show there are 14 points of agreement. However many of which are things that raise anomalies yet to be accounted for. In other words empirical data agreed by everyone who has looked at the destruction of the twin towers, but which cannot be accounted for or contradicts previous conclusions.

If you read the article (it appears you haven't) - each of the 14 points are things that cast doubt on the official conclusions..
i.e:

6. Fire Endurance Tests, No Failure

NIST: “NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11”.4

We agree that NIST had actual fire tests completed and that all four “trusses like those in the WTC towers” survived the fire-endurance testing “without collapsing.” We also agree that “the fires in the towers on September 11 … were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces;” the test furnaces were hotter and burned longer. NIST may wish to perform a series of different tests in an endeavor to discover some other hypothesis for collapse initiation. As it stands, however, we have no physical evidence supporting the concept of total collapse due to fire from real fire-endurance tests. On the contrary, these real-life tests indicate that the buildings should not have completely collapsed. In addition, we have hundreds of cases of fires in tall steel-frame buildings and complete collapse has never occurred.--
As for your quote, you get arrogant people in whatever 'movement' or walk of life, but essentially that of little importance, as it serves nothing but to side step the issue again..

Reading you link - although I am completely ignorant of the 'beef' as it were when it comes to JFK conspiracy theories; familiar with the basics obviously - the below paragraphs jumped out at me as being about as spot as it gets:


Can the concept of conspiracy be rescued from the often shoddy work of conspiracy theorists?

I think it can if we're talking about maintaining a skepticism about official truth—government pronouncements, corporate releases. If that skepticism then leads to scrupulous investigation rather than unfounded theorizing. Doubt is good and stops being good only when it becomes unearned certainty about unproven alternate conclusions that are not subjected to the same skeptical inquiry as the official story.the article is clearly scrupulous investigation rather than unfounded theorizing.. it's conclusions are that another mechanism was needed for the total collapse other than fire: and that all empirical data points to explosives, from speed of collapse, to CSI style chemical fingerprints of explosives found in the dust samples.

But you are right that isn't something I'd put in the "conspiracy"...... as not for one second do they claim to know who or what carried it out... however you can draw your own logical conclusions - that if explosive were used as the evidence points
to, then something more powerful and advanced than Al Quaeda would be involved.. as to who or what, only a new truly independent investigation might be able to get some of the many answers needed... most importantly for the relatives many of which to this day are still fighting for those answers...... and so does sit right in the 'truther mill' if you want to label it like that!

[alien autopsy]

its convenient to lump anyone who disagrees with the official 9-11 story with the "truthers" and then say that they all are guilty of this or that...

its bullshit.

i dont talk shit to chomsky

i love amy goodman.

i also think that 9-11 was a grand coup.

frizlfrazlmcnugget.

grouping people and stereotyping isnt fair, its just convenient.


9-11 was allowed to happen. george bush had specific threat information handed to his desk in the months prior to 9-11. yet we didnt shoot down the plane that went on to hit the pentagon. we didnt evacuate the second twoer after the first was hit....we acted like we were caught off guard and repeatdly were told there was no specific threat information. but there was. fact of the matter.

[geggy]

The truth about 9/11 commission...

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/CBCSunday_20060910.wmv

[geggy]

The former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/17/122900.shtml

The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access...."

http://salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index4.html

And former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal. This investigation is now compromised. One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up."

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/11/21/cleland/index.html?pn=1

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/13/911_panel_to_get_access_to_withheld_data/

Bush opposed Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to "intelligence failures" , so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues
involved.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/

The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's meeting with the 9/11 commission is the latest chapter in historical wrestle between the executive branches and legislative branches. Although the agreement to appear is a compromise, the meeting took place largely on White House terms. In allowing Mr. Bush and Cheney to appear, the White House stipulated that no transcripts would be taken and that neither would speak under oath, hence differentiating it from formal testimony.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/28/politics/main614604.shtml

The investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/11/con05439.html

[alien autopsy]

welcome geggy! isnt it sad/funny how people are so concerned with trivial attacks and stereotypes that they miss the big picture? :rolleyes:

[The Notorious LOL]

I think any "cover up" (assuming there has been any) would be omissions of the glaringly obvious evidence that something like this was in the works and the Bush administration overlooked it.

You're giving a lot of credit to these dumbfucks....they cant even overthrow a country right, but they somehow managed to pull off blowing up some buildings without anyone aware?

[Carlos]

You're giving a lot of credit to these dumbfucks....they cant even overthrow a country right, but they somehow managed to pull off blowing up some buildings without anyone aware?ah the old incompetence fall back belief system... even when all empirical data shows the official story to be impossible - the belief system is too hard to throw away..

...but maybe just maybe these guys aren't so dumb. You say they can't even overthrow a country - well think they did the overthrowing part rather well: 3 weeks was way shorter than anyone expected.
What your assuming is that the goal was to make Iraq a better place. It clearly wasn't - it was to secure the oil and major strategic points, to create a weak Iraq that the US can push about and steal the oil from and essentially use as a control base for USA's military might: which is exactly what is in the PNAC document Rebuilding America Defenses written at end of last century pescribed by the neo-cons (cheney, rumsfeld, wolfie, etc...).
In the same doc they clearly say, that such an aggressive move to re-take control over the middle east would not be pallet-able by the US public without some major catalyzing event "such as a new pearl habour.." The exact same words that on the day of 911, 911 was being labeled a new pearl habour by those same neo-cons!!!!

Oil is now at record prices, with the oil companies that these same neo-cons are in bed with are making record profits, and the military-industrial complex is doing booooming trade due to the ongoing war - again neo-cons have massive ties with these military companies.

So if you look at it from the perspective that these guys really couldn't a shit about America, or American/Iraqi people, and are only concerned with creating greater wealth and more importantly power, then maybe they they ain't that dumb after all??!!! (the greatest trick the devil played?)

Not that I assume that these guys were behind it, although they have clear motive, and the resources... so are far more likely than Al Quaeda.. but I am open minded as to who exactly was involved... and as I've said in previous posts is of little interest in some respects: what is of more interest and fruitful investigation is the empirical data that contradicts the so called official story.. and therefore shows the official story to imcomplete at best, and just spun lies at worst.

[ericg]

fools will keep asking. they just can't handle the truth. is it any wonder these days? no integral props. A-T A-L-L. securacom.. no flight scheduled.. no crash debris.. no release of pentagon tapes.. cheney's unprecidented taking over of norad months before and the total lapse of defense with not one but 3 planes.. wtc's new terrorist insurance policy with a payoff of billions.. #7.. oil.. stock 'put' options.. and then there's e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g else. "just look at them!" with holes that big, you could fly a 747 through them. i could be deaf, dumb and blind and know the truth. you have to be mentally handicapped or the worst kind of person to live in your bush induced gower syndrome fantasy world.
'You better off...
Is what I say, best run the other way
In case of physical breakdown...y'all can break now'

[yeahwho]

fools will keep asking. they just can't handle the truth. is it any wonder these days? no integral props. A-T A-L-L. securacom.. no flight scheduled.. no crash debris.. no release of pentagon tapes.. cheney's unprecidented taking over of norad months before and the total lapse of defense with not one but 3 planes.. wtc's new terrorist insurance policy with a payoff of billions.. #7.. oil.. stock 'put' options.. and then there's e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g else. "just look at them!" with holes that big, you could fly a 747 through them. i could be deaf, dumb and blind and know the truth. you have to be mentally handicapped or the worst kind of person to live in your bush induced gower syndrome fantasy world.
'You better off...
Is what I say, best run the other way
In case of physical breakdown...y'all can break now'

Hey Einstein, there were 4 planes on 9-11.

[ericg]

really? let's just say 2.