If you have a spare few minutes, peruse http://patriotsquestion911.com/ and see that more than 130 senior military (including generals), intelligence (including CIA and FBI) and governmental figures (all the way to cabinet level), 490 engineers and architects, 120 pilots, 260 academics, 210 survivors and families (includes fire, police and emergency medical personnel) and 140 celebrities and media professionals question the 9/11 Commission Report. Really, scroll down and read the sometimes scathing commentary.
Now add to these the many top level military figures from around the world including defense ministers and secretaries from Britain, Germany, Canada and Russia (http://www.sf911truth.org/ and scroll down).
"Conspiracy nuts" needing Paxil? Absolutely not! These are people with insider understanding and with technical and research expertise. Many have devoted much of their lives to ferreting out facts and data that standard information sources suppress. A good source of technical information is architect Richard Gage's presentation at the University of Manitoba in May, 2007 ( http://www.ae911truth.org). Gage leads a group of over 400 architects and engineers who have amassed indisputable evidence that internal demolition brought down the World Trade Center and Building 7. No matter what one's views regarding the attacks and who might have been responsible, the mere fact that so many people in such positions openly stand against the official account is, in itself, worthy of substantial news coverage.
Because those in government and academe take professional risks in expressing disdain for an official explanation that is insulting to one's intelligence, it is reasonable to surmise that there are many more who fear to express similar judgments. Now add the fact that some polls show that as many as 100 million Americans believe the government is covering up information about the 9/11 attack or are in some way complicit. Not worthy of some serious investigative journalism?
Recalling CIA Director William Colby's famous comment "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media", it is not difficult to understand why the O'Reillys, Hannitys, Williams', Gibsons and Courics would not deal with such an issue. After all, these millionaire "talking heads" speak for their owners: Rupert Murdoch, General Electric, Inc., Disney, Inc. and the aptly named National Amusements, Inc., respectively. Mainstream print media likewise.
What is so astonishing is that "progressive" outlets long considered reliable sources of information of the sort avoided by corporate-owned media are also evidently involved in a willful silence about the issue. They continue to turn a collective blind eye to information that virtually shouts out for major coverage.
Consider, for example, a 2007 exchange between Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman and professor Kevin Barrett following her speech at the University of Wisconsin, Madison ( 3-minute clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2yC4xgeVMM ). From the floor, Barrett mentioned that the "countdown" for demolition of Building 7 was heard on police radio, that BCC reported the collapse of Building 7 20 minutes before it fell, and that Goodman, being in the area at the time, was in a particularly good position to question the event. Goodman parried with a humorous quip that brought laughter from the audience: "I did not demolish Building 7". Following Barrett's question "When are you going to get around to doing some ground zero reporting about Building 7?", she was vague with "... I agree there are a lot of questions that have to be answered."
Later, at a book signing, Barrett approached Goodman with a book to be signed. One can hear these snippets as he tries to interest her in 9/11 and she avoids the issue:
Goodman: "I guess you're famous here".
Barrett: "If you break this story, I think it's going to be historic"
Goodman: "I don't want to mess up your page."
Barry Zwicker, the Canadian journalist who has organized conferences on 9/11, is so bewildered by Goodman's refusal to tackle the issue that he simply guesses that there must be "some other agenda" about which he's unaware
But it's not just Goodman. The Nation, In These Times and Mother Jones, all three trusted "progressive" periodicals of long standing, have joined in countering those trying to bring 9/11 to the forefront. In December of 2006 The Nation published "9/11: The Roots of Paranoia" in which author Christopher Hayes, senior editor of In These Times, calls the 9/11 Truth Movement "a rabbit hole of delusion". This September, James Ridgeway, of Mother Jones magazine, published the incredibly inept "Homeland Insecurity: The 9/11 Conspiracy File: Myths and Facts" in which he dismisses a veritable army of physicists, engineers and architects regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center, parroting instead a FISA report that even FISA insiders question.
Many investigative journalists have taken rude shots at the 9/11 Truth Movement. Greg Palast (http://www.911blogger.com/node/9029) stated on camera that "Controlled demolition I could rule out ... stone cold, nothing, nothing there", and he calls physicist Steven Jones "a complete, utter fraud." Britain's George Monbiot ( http://transitionculture.org/2007/02/09/monbiot-911-and-notions-of-truth/ ) writes of the Truth Movement as "an ocean of nonsense [that] sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots." Monbiot's assertion of "the complete absence of scientific advice" in the Truth Movement is absolute proof that he has not taken the time to look.
It is this insufferable refusal to look at the mountains of "scientific advice", and to dismiss the 9/11 issue with bland acknowledgment of "a lot of unanswered questions", that describes the most prominent and significant personalities of the "establishment left". And it makes one wonder about how far CIA tendrils extend, and what, exactly, Colby might have meant by "everyone of any significance".
www.billwillers.com
Bill Willers is emeritus professor of biology, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh now living in Middleton, WI. He is founder of Superior Wilderness Action Network (SWAN) and editor of Learning to Listen to the Land and Unmanaged Landscapes, both from Island Press.
See history of non-communist left during the Cold War
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, 45 comments)
on Friday, July 11, 2008 at 3:59:02 PM
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:
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.
"... 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, 48 comments)
on Friday, July 11, 2008 at 6:36:37 PM
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, 396 comments)
on Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 7:34:46 AM
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:
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:
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:
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, 396 comments)
on Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 9:27:53 AM
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.
Likewise Roark Howard, self-described voice for the "light of reason", whose more than 340 comments are devoid of either light or reason, and who appears to have made a career out of ranting against those who question the "official version".
Mr. Howard, if you are such a voice for reason, do take the time to organize your thoughts into a bona fide article that is clear, devoid of snotty comments and full of the light of reason.
It's odd, this collective of people who work so hard to attack those who are concerned about the many "unanswered questions" surrounding 9/11. Who, exactly, are they? If "Truthers" are such a misguided lot, why not simply ignore them? Why take such pains to attack?
by
Bill Willers (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 48 comments)
on Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 11:42:41 AM
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.
Likewise Roark Howard, self-described voice for the "light of reason", whose more than 340 comments are devoid of either light or reason, and who appears to have made a career out of ranting against those who question the "official version".
Mr. Howard, if you are such a voice for reason, do take the time to organize your thoughts into a bona fide article that is clear, devoid of snotty comments and full of the light of reason.
It's odd, this collective of people who work so hard to attack those who are concerned about the many "unanswered questions" surrounding 9/11. Who, exactly, are they? If "Truthers" are such a misguided lot, why not simply ignore them? Why take such pains to attack?
To me, becoming suddenly and unexpectedly "anonymous" on here doesn't smack of moral cowardice, it smacks of an OpEdNews malfunction which I didn't notice until you pointed it out, but will try to correct immediately. I don't know how to comment anonymously, and have absolutely no reason to want to do so. I logged in and went to my profile page, which still contains all of the information I put into it, including my identity, but since you can't access it, here's the URL for an article I recently wrote for OpEdNews which identifies me: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Suggestions-for-the-9-11-T-by-albury-smith-080628-291.html
I also posted in the preface to my first unintentionally anonymous reply to your article here the link to my previous use of the same commentary on Gage in response to a different article, and my name is on it. Your ignoring of "Richard Gage vs. the Truth" and your dismissal of it as "essentially garble" smacks of moral cowardice and a desire to avoid any of the issues I raised in it, but I can certainly understand your resentment of any valid and sincere challenges to your own garble. Truthers are a misguided lot, and I've provided a number of reasons for that conclusion in "Richard Gage vs. the Truth," as well as in my own article and in the commentary by me which followed it. And despite the fact that you "simply ignore" NIST's NCSTAR1, developed over a two-year period by more than 230 scientists, engineers and prestigious subcontractors such as LERA and SOM, who are highly qualified and had access to all of the facts and evidence available, I choose not to ignore you. I'm at least as interested in the truth as you claim to be, and I thoroughly resent seeing it distorted and misrepresented by charlatans and opportunists. If you have any intelligent comments to make about "Richard Gage vs. the Truth," feel free to express them instead of using OpEdNews's software malfunction as an excuse not to.
by
albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 396 comments)
on Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 2:35:54 PM
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, 396 comments)
on Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 2:50:16 PM
Real moral cowardice is inflicting this odious nonsense on your readers and thenavoiding any defense of it when it's exposed for what it is. I still haven't heard from the OpEdNews editor about the problem with my name on replies to articles, but I have written an article that was posted here recently, and the information is on it. Here's the link:
Gage, whom you apparently support, is an opportunistic liar and a charlatan, and my post concerning him supports that contention. Why don't you address some of my points instead of dismissing them as "garble" and using a computer glitch as an excuse to duck them?
by
albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 396 comments)
on Sunday, July 13, 2008 at 10:33:13 AM
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."
Mark Roberts isone of the top debunkers in the US, and if you've ever visited his web site you'd know that cardinal rule #1 is simply false. If you've seen videos of Mark debating Jim Fetzer, Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas, or the truther nuts at Ground Zero, you'd also know that they're the ones attacking, and he's always very pleasant. And if you don't think that he seriously investigates this topic, or that the NIST people didn't, then you're the one guilty of proclamation in place of facts. I "bothered" you with plenty of facts in my posts to this article, and you've yet to address any of them. Why is that?
Here are more challenges to the "truth" movement, along with my identity, which OpEdNews has taken from me temporarily, I hope:
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 (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments)
on Monday, July 14, 2008 at 9:01:52 AM
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.
That's hilarious. While most normal people simply ignore the "truth" movement, this is what happens to debunkers who counter your nonsense with facts:
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.
Here's what happened to the woman who took a picture of the crash of UA 93 in Shanksville:
