See CIA's relations with the "Non-Comunist Left" during the Cold War, for a hint as to the author's question.  In particular Encounter Magazine.  All of the left publications are funded by coundations, on condition that they remain totally irrelevent, and not talk about issues that could portentially corm a critical mass.

by Nathaniel Heidenheimer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Friday, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:59:02 PM

  (0+)

Actually, Amy Goodman interviewed Sibel Edmonds and has covered aspects of the Anthrax and Israeli "high-fivers". She does seem scared to deal with WTC7's obvious controlled demolition, though.

But considering the MSM and the US government themselves have put out so much info that contradicts the Official Conspiracy Theory, and how much popular support there is for 9/11 investigations, you'd think more would find it OK to reject the OCT and do some real investigative journalism:

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

It's indeed interesting that so many people are willing to risk their reputation, career and social standing by questioning 9/11, but in itself it doesn't prove much. I'm also skeptical that some of the people at Alan Miller's site are in fact patriots; the ones that insist on pushing discredited theories about "energy beams", "no planes", "no 757 at the Pengagon", holograms, pods and the like. 

911Summary.com is better screened, imho

http://www.911summary.com

The PentagonNo-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman  

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:44:14 PM

  (0+)

"... ones that insist on pushing discredited theories about "energy beams", "no planes" .... "

There are plenty of fake comments which, when inserted into the larger discussion, serve to call the entire discussion into question. And that's their function. 

by Bill Willers (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 50 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jul 11, 2008 at 6:36:37 PM

  (0+)

There were no columns or other structural members from any of the three collapsed WTC buildings that showed even the slightest sign of having been severed or otherwise affected by cutter charges or incendiaries, both of which leave very distinct, highly visible signatures. 40,000 people sorted through the WTC debris for nearly eight months after the attacks. That's all of the indisputable evidence I need. 

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Saturday, Jul 12, 2008 at 7:34:46 AM

  (0+)

Because, by and large, they are inteligent people who realize that the 9/11 truth movment is nonsense.

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Saturday, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:17:33 AM

  (0+)

What ever happened to that book, "The Shill Game?"

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Saturday, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:26:07 AM

  (0+)

Gage recently sent a letter to Congressman Robert Wexler explaining his views on 9/11, and OpEdNews ran an article about it 11 days ago. I made the following response, which was the only one posted for that article, and since Gage is featured in this one also, I'm posting it again:

 

What a grotesque comedy of errors. 400,000 yards (10.8 million cu. ft.) of concrete? The buildings were steel-framed, the poured concrete foundations weren't "pulverized into a fine powder that blanketed Manhattan," and if 220 floor slabs @ ~43,560 sq. ft. each were, then the slab thickness for every floor must have been well over 13". Thousands of yards of broken concrete were removed from the site, and there are no photos of Ground Zero showing all of this fine dust covering the scene, nor were there any reports of it from witnesses. If Gage thinks explosives or thermite did what he falsely alleges, then why doesn't he demonstrate how? He should get about 10 yards (.0025% of his 400,000 figure) of fully-cured 3500# concrete slabs from old sidewalks and patios and pulverize them to a fine powder in less than 20 seconds without leveling a few city blocks in every direction. I'd pay to see it on video, but not from closer than five miles in person. 

Numerous witnesses heard explosions, but there is no evidence that anyone heard explosives. The quantity needed to collapse a tower would have been heard from Montauk to Cape May or even farther and seen clearly in every video, and there would be no debate about whether it was a falling elevator car, exploding transformer, partially collapsing floor, or any of the other explainable, witnessed sources of loud sounds that were heard before the collapses. The largest "massive structural steel member hurled" any great distance from either tower was no heavier than the average SUV, and since 125-250 million pounds of building fell at least one story and collided with the intact building below at a height of 1200 and 1000' respectively (North and South Towers), Gage should tell us what force was present at the time that would have prevented debris from flying a few hundred feet sideways before hitting the ground or another building. And at 70 mph (~100 fps)? Initial velocity of high explosives is at least 15,000 fps, and not even the non-"massive" debris was ejected at more than a tiny fraction of that speed.

Then he switches from explosives to thermite, an incendiary that wouldn't account for the explosions that were heard, and deliberately misleads us by giving the melting point of steel before making the questionable claim that tons of molten metal were seen flowing out of one tower. If this were from columns or trusses, wouldn't a collapse have ensued immediately, instead of a half hour or so later? And why was it  only from one place? It was very likely aluminum from Flight 175 or lead from a battery bank in a UPS system, but it most certainly wasn't the framing of the South tower pouring out of one opening in the exterior of the tower for a brief period of time. Thermite is difficult to ignite with precision, burns straight down unless diverted sideways by bulky devices clamped or bolted to columns or resting on the floor, and only produces heat for a minute or two, so he's undermining his own credibility by citing reports that molten metal was observed weeks later in the basements and associating it with thermite. He mentions Les Robertson, a highly regarded structural engineer who worked on the original tower designs and reportedly saw the molten metal, presumably to add some prestige by association, but the last thing Richard Gage would ever do is sit down and discuss his theories with him in public. Gage has turned down repeated invitations to present his claims on air with Mark Roberts, a very knowledgeable "debunker" of his work, and Robertson is equally in the NIST corner, and has even better science and engineering credentials, so that just isn't going to happen. Furthermore, chemical evidence of incendiaries is inconclusive in the middle of piles of building material exposed to jet fuel, because drywall and other common building materials as well as jet fuel have ingredients in common with them, and he and his source have offered no chain of custody for their samples and haven't presented chemical signatures of spent thermite or thermate for comparison to them. The only peer review offered by the principal incendiary proponent, Steven Jones, is that his work is included in a new book by David Ray Griffin, a theologian. 

Gage is an architect, but he hasn't presented architectural sections of columns and shown us where any of these alleged explosives or incendiaries could possibly have been hidden on them. Here's a cut through a typical perimeter column in a WTC tower:

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/images/image008.gif

As you can see, they weren't close to the exteriors of the towers, they WERE the exteriors of the towers, and in almost every case, they were only accessible through secured, occupied tenant spaces. 40 in the picture is aluminum cladding on the outside, 42 is window glass, 39 is drywall, and 36 is the 14" square steel column itself. At least 60% of each column was outside of the building, and only one face was fully accessible from inside and it was covered with finished drywall. Where do the explosives go where they can't be seen? Above the ceilings or below access floors? 52" high, 3/8" thick (or more) spandrels were welded to the inside faces of all of the perimeter columns at every story completely covering both of those locations. It would not only be difficult to get explosives through them and onto or inside the columns, but spandrels are the least likely place for a column tree to separate in a collapse, and if a large number of them broke apart in that odd location, they'd be even more conspicuous in the debris than cutter charge or thermite cuts in any other part of the columns, although any cut of that very distinct type in any location would have been instantly noticed and reported by the ironworkers and others who handled or even looked at the steel during the 8-month cleanup period, no matter how quickly anyone thinks the steel was scrapped. 236 of these columns existed on the perimeter of each tower, many were broken in the collapses, no one saw evidence of explosives or incendiaries on the ends of them in the debris, and it was virtually impossible to hide charges anywhere on them, or even to get to them secretly, so Gage should really be answering questions instead of asking them.

He has also claimed that the towers fell "too fast," and at "near free-fall speed." Here's a video of the North Tower collapsing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rsj7EERmFo 

A complete collapse is shown starting at 1:43 on the timer at the bottom and still in progress at 2:00. Loose debris is clearly seen coming down much faster than the building is, and some of it hits the ground 6-8 seconds before the collapse stops. Was it coming down faster than free-fall speed? What is "too fast" when "g" has just been reduced from >32'/sec^2 to <9.5'/sec^2? NIST has not rigorously calculated scientifically acceptable times for the towers to collapse gravitationally, but Dr. Frank Greening has, and his work is presented here:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

This is an inexact science, since all of the variables can't be determined precisely, but Greening's results are considerably faster than the times I've observed on various videos, including the one I just linked to. Gage has claimed collapse times far shorter than those actually observed by any honest person, and has presented one paper by Gordon Ross claiming that the collapses should have self-arrested, a conclusion drawn by very few reputable scientists and engineers and totally rejected by those from NIST, as well as being completely counterintuitive, and he can't even come up with a plausible explanation for how it was done in the unlikely event that he wasn't wrong about this too.

These are just some of my problems with Gage's so-called research, and there are plenty of others, but they amply illustrate why he chooses to make his presentations on the Internet or in front of the "9/11 Was an Inside Job!" set, instead of exposing them to any serious scrutiny. Anyone who's that wrong about that many things would probably do the same.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Saturday, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:27:53 AM

  (0+)

First, someone who posted "Richard Gage vs the Truth" is not identified, something that smacks of moral cowardice. No matter, since the posting is essentially garble and simply ignores what many have documented. 

by Bill Willers (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 50 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:42:41 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Saturday, Jul 12, 2008 at 2:35:54 PM

  (0+)

Since my name is still not coming up when I post, I have contacted the editor. My profile page looks OK, and I don't know what's causing this problem, but I'm  trying to resolve it.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Saturday, Jul 12, 2008 at 2:50:16 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:33:13 AM

  (0+)

One of the cardinal rules of debunkers is "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up."

Another is "If one can't attack the data, attack the people. It is easier."

Still another is "Do one's research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway."

by Bill Cain (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 435 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:15:58 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:25:13 AM

  (0+)

That is why the truth movement is failing, withering away on the vine.

The next truther Tee-shirt: "Bong hits for 9/11 truth!" 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Sunday, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:19:20 AM

  (0+)

To everyone who thinks that talking openly about 9-11 Truth should a no-brainer: How many of you are in the position of losing your job, your career, or your pension over it? How many of you would risk the lives or safety of your family members over it?

Welcome to the world of Truth Suppression - one in which those of us in the UFO Disclosure movement have been living for over 60 years. OH, I almost forgot. I'm not supposed to equate in any way 9-11 with UFO's, less I discredit the movement.

by Bill Cain (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 435 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:01:52 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:42:44 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:53:24 AM

  (0+)

 - the truth is approximately this - you cannot be an intelligent, somewhat educated person, see those three towers falling as they did that day as we have in endless vids, and believe the OCT (official conspiracy theory), anymore than you can be a somewhat intelligent adult and believe in santa claus. Exactly what happened I do not know, but it is blatantly obvious that the impact of those planes and the resulting tiny fires could NOT have caused the collapse of those buildings, the way they did. There's more detail here - <A HREF="http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/911-thoughtex.html#ctc">911 Thought Experiment </A> - if troll Ruark or mr anonymous or anyone else would care to deal with anything in this piece (in a factual rather than name-calling way), you might show your interest in getting at the truth, rather than simply shouting down anyone who dares question the OTC, as you seem intent on doing.

by siamdave (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:04:36 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:53:52 AM

  (0+)

 - I have no idea what the NIST people et al are up to, whether they're just stupid people (many 'scientists' are) or paid propagandists like anyone else flogging the official theory (there is considerable evidence out there suggesting this - read any of David Ray Griffin's stuff for more detail) - what I do see is you obviously haven't bothered to look at the arguments I suggested, or if you have you have seen that they really can't be addressed without admitting that the OCT is indeed full of holes - which would seem to make you closer to a troll trying to divert honest attempts to find the truth than anyone actually looking for the truth yourself. And if you don't address some of these arguments, then you'll hear no more from me.

by siamdave (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:02:46 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:36:06 AM

  (0+)

What excuse will you use now for not addressing any of my comments?

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:15:30 PM

  (0+)

This is not a debate, but a jumble of cut-and-paste peppered with ad hominem attacks.

I agree with the premise of the article: there seems to be an unreasonable and unexplainable amount of resistance to a rational examination and discussion of the events of 9/11.  The comments that follow pretty well demonstrate it.

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:11:09 PM

  (0+)