OpEdNews Op Eds

The 9/11 Two Minute Study

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (7 fans)
- Advertisement -
I listen to talk radio. I've tried listening to Limbaugh, Hannity and other so called "conservatives", but when they start calling people names or say something that's obviously untrue, I turn to progressive radio.

The most balanced and fair progressive radio host is Thom Hartmann. He actually invites people who don't agree with him to be on his show. He debates them and, in my biased opinion, he usually wins.

He's courteous to his guests, no matter what their opinions are.

I've called into Thom's show. I've been able to say most of what I want to say and he usually gives as much of an answer as possible.

Hartmann is a knowledgeable historian, lucid and articulate.

Ed Schultz is another talk show host. He considers himself a progressive. He is center of left . He changed stripes somewhere along his career from conservative to progressive, so the center of left position is understandable.

On Saturday, July 29, 2006, C-Span allowed radio host Alex Jones and a panel of people Jones considers "experts" to talk for two hours about the ongoing 9/11 "conspiracy theory".

I have progressive friends who can't bring themselves to believe that the official explanation of what happened on September 11, 2001 is untrue. I've given them books, including the two by David Ray Griffin, and I've pointed them towards videos that expose how impossible the official explanation is.
- Advertisement -


If one looks at one or two pieces of the evidence, one may be able to claim that evidence is a fluke or a coincidence. However, there is a boatload of evidence, situations and circumstances that, when taken together, make it obvious that the official account is not accurate.

My progressive friends read the books and watched the videos and still can't bring themselves to believe that people in the American government would do such a thing. They love America and don't want to believe that Americans could elect people who would be involved in something so nefarious and monstrous as the events of 9/11. I understand that.

Someone called the Thom Hartmann program and asked him why he thought that World Trade Center Building #7 collapsed in exactly the same manner as buildings 1 and 2, although 7 was never hit by an airplane. Hartmann said that he'd read and heard about that anomaly and just doesn't know how it could have happened. He gave the caller no less time nor courtesy than he gives other callers. Hartmann admitted that one just doesn't know what goes on "behind the scenes". Hartmann did not say that he believes the alternative theories about 9/11. I believe he doesn't because, if one begins to look into the alternative theories, given how great a crime they imply, one would do almost nothing but dwell upon those theories.

In striking contrast, Schultz has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe that "America hit itself" on 9/11/01.

Those of us who think that there's an alternative explanation don't believe "America hit itself" on 9/11 either. We believe that enemies from within may have hit the United States.
- Advertisement -


He's quite discourteous to anyone who calls his show to talk about the "crazy conspiracy theory".

Worst of all, Schultz said that he "gave the theory a chance" by beginning to watch the July 29 program on C-Span. However, he claims that he could only watch two minutes of the program. He claims that one of the panelists, 9/11 Scholars for Truth founder James Fetzer, is known to "chase conspiracy theories".

Fetzer made the statement within the two minutes during which Schultz gave the theory "a chance" that the nineteen hijackers could not have been taught enough about flying to have pulled off their dastardly deeds.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Michael Bonanno is an associate editor for OpEdNews.

He is also a published poet, essayist and musician who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Bonanno is a political progressive, not a Democratic Party apologist. He believes it's (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Teabaggers; Children of the Sixties?

Will "Americans Elect" Their President in 2012?

Why Anarchism, Communism and Libertarianism are Pipe Dreams

It's OK to say "Merry Christmas"

LA Socialist Party Local Holds Organizing Meeting (Discussion with Mimi Soltysik, Local Chair)

Our Goal For 2010; Disprove Corporate Personhood

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments