For example, the fact that there's an alliance between The Regime and Osama bin Laden shouldn't be so shocking. The very large bin Laden family and the Bush family have been friends for years. I think this is why The Regime chose W to front for them in the 2000 presidential selection.
In his article "Interrogating 9/11: No Theory, Just Facts", Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed gives more good reasons why Osama bin Laden may have worked with The Regime in carrying out the 9/11 attacks.
As of late, it's clear that alternate 9/11 theories have been becoming more popular and taken more seriously.
Members of The Left, some of my favorite people in the world, have taken to trying to debunk the "crazy conspiracy theories".
Ed Schultz, whose radio show I listen to almost every weekday, claims to have watched a group which calls itself 9/11 Scholars for Truth on C-Span, but could only watch "two minutes" of it because of what Schultz thought was a spurious reference to flying. I express disappointment in Schultz's close mindedness in my article "The 9/11 Two Minute Study".
"How the 9/11 Truth Movement Ignores Reality" by Joshua Frank, an article attempting to refute the "conspiracy theorists", was recently published at OpEdNews. This article received a number of comments, none of which Mr. Frank has answered to date. Mr. Frank didn't use a great deal of factual information in his article.
It's not so bothersome that members of The Left are writing articles disputing alternate 9/11 theories. What is bothersome, however, is when Left leaning writers not only try to dispute those theories, but tell those of us who put stock in them to basically stop talking and writing about them. It's obvious that Matthew Rothschild wants to silence us in his article "Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already" published by The Progressive.
One of the first points which Rothschild makes is that "Osama bin Laden has already claimed responsibility for the attack several times". Rothschild asks us to take Osama bin Laden at his word.
That may be easy to do for those who don't entertain the possibility that bin Laden worked with The Regime to perpetrate the acts of 9/11. There's been so much deception about and since 9/11 that anyone who is believed to have been involved could never be taken at his or her word.
Rothschild calls David Ray Griffin "the guru of the 9/11 conspiracy movement" and reminds us that Griffin is "an emeritus professor not of engineering but of philosophy and theology at the Claremont School of Theology."
Griffin was not the first to look at what happened on 9/11 and note that The Regime's explanation was full of holes. Others "peddled" these alternate theories before Griffin wrote his books. In fact, in his books, Griffin uses the research and explanations of those who had already "peddled" the theories. I'm not sure if Mr. Rothschild has a degree in structural engineering or any other kind of engineering for that matter. If he does not, he does exactly what Griffin does. He uses the research and explanations of others to back up his argument. Rothschild sites his own experts to prove that the alternate theories about 9/11 are "outlandish".
The lowest point of Rothschild's article is when he references Griffin's allegation that World Trade Center landlord Larry Silverstein purposely allowed World Trade Center building #7 to collapse. Rothschild makes the repugnant statement that Griffin's allegation could be called "The Jew Cashed In". Rothschild can believe that the theories are over the top, but it is insulting and irrelevant to the debate to imply that those of us who place credence in those theories are anti-Semitic.
Rothschild closes by stating that "It is more than passing strange that progressives, who so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming, are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11."
It is equally strange, and rather disturbing, that progressives such as Schultz, Frank and, above all, Rothschild should mirror the right wing tactic of claiming to believe in the first amendment but not in this case.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
