One of the main reasons which kept me away from the 9/11 Truth movement for 8 years was the tone and tactics of some of the most vocal members of the 9/11T movement. The video below is a perfect example of the kind of tactics these guys use:
Seeing this video made me recall one evening in Melbourne, FL, where I had travelled to listen to Amy Goodman make a presentation. Amy was about halfway through her presentation when some young guy suddenly jumped up and began screaming that “9/11 was an inside job! 9/11 was an inside job!”. Amy calmly thanked him for having made his point and asked him to sit down and please let her continue. They guy then got even more hysterical and began yelling at her “why don’t you say that 9/11 was an inside job!!!”. Amy calmly retorted to him “look, I don’t tell you what you have to say, what gives you the right to tell me what I have to say?!”. By then, the entire hall was booing and hissing at the screaming truther and it took the campus police to finally get the guy out. And what was the result? The rude and arrogant behavior of that truther turned roughly 300 people completely off the topic of 9/11. I know, I was one of them.
The sad reality that next to such wonderful gentlemen like Richard Gage, Steven Jones and many others, there is a real “9/11 Truth Gestapo” out there which, just like the Saudi or Afghan “mutaween” morals police (The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice) feels that it has the right to hound and harass any and all persons who happen not to endorse the 9/11 Truth movement. This “9/11 Gestapo” has made folks like Amy Goodman, David Rovics and Noam Chomsky the targets of special vitriol since all of them are anti-establishment resisters with a track record of standing up to Uncle Sam which very few of us can match (that all three of them are Jews probably also makes them prime targets for anti-Jewish bigots who think that all Jews must be crypto-Zionists).
I am not sure about Noam Chomsky, but I know for a fact that both Amy Goodman and David Rovics do support a new and independent investigation into the events of September 11. But that is not good enough for the “9/11 Gestapo police”! No, they want *everybody* to already pre-judge the findings of this investigation and, God forbid, anybody would dare to doubt or, even worse, disagree with the *dogma* that “9/11 was in inside job”!
I am absolutely convinced, beyond any doubt, that 9/11 was, indeed, and inside job. And I would be delighted to have Amy Goodman, David Rovics and Noam Chomsky to declare that they came to the same conclusion has I did. But that hardly give me the right to constantly harass them with rude and obnoxious demands that they think just like I do. That kind of 9/11T fascism is not helping the 9/11T movement at all.
Some folks out there seem to like Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura and the rest of the “screaming” truthers a lot. I guess stuff like “Prison Planet” “American conspiracies” or “Infowars” sound great to their ears. To me, this sounds like just another version of the kind of what I call “Texan crap” we had to put up with for 8 years of Dubya. You know, cowboy stuff. The kind which appeals to IQs at, or under, room temperatures.
There is no denying that this, shall we say, “cowboy 9/11” stuff does appeal to some people. And for all my dislike for Alex Jones (he does even sound and look like Dubya, no? “Give me a visor!” as Caliendo would say), he has been in the 9/11T movement a heck of a lot longer that yours truly. So I have to set some of my own preferences aside and not begin doing exactly what this “9/11 Gestapo” does: to assume that everybody who does not agree with me is therefore evil, dishonest or some kind of ‘gatekeeper’. But not making assumptions about the motives of these people, I still have the right to clearly state that I believe that their demeanor, tactics and mindset alienate the right side of the Bell Curve and that is very bad for the entire 9/11 Truth movement.
The idea that we will all walk to the 9/11 truth in lockstep is morally wrong and practically misguided. The truth about 9/11, as any other truth, will only come out of a free and contradictory discussion, in which many different views will be heard and judged on their merits. In the meanwhile, as a very practical matter, we should consider everybody who agrees to a new investigation into 9/11 as an ally and a person we should express thanks and gratitude to, and not a target for scorn or harassment.
The Saker
I think 911 was a false flag operation. I’m fairly sure of it. Not because building 7 dropped into its own footprint, never having bee struck by an airplane. Not because I believe or not believe nano thermite was found in the dust. Not that the Israeli agenda of putting the us in the foxhole with Israel, surrounding Iran on two sides and menacing it with attack with no evidence of nuclear weapons program. (none!)
All this stuff, and a lot more are evidence but THIS is the sure shot evidence that 911 was a false flag operation, and Al-Qaida of any strength, with the agenda attributed to it by the media, is plan and simple fiction. READY–
Imagine 12 people could possibly sneak across the border from Mexico, (or Canada) each with a bag of contraband- not dope, but a bag of hand grenades each.- And on a appointed weekend they would each to a mall or railroad station in the US and toss the grenades into a crowd. Even if only half of them succeeded, imagine the panic. Look at Malvou, the sniper and what panic two people caused, one man and a teenager. Who can imagine a cadre of determined men with modest finance, and the alleged Al-Qaida agenda could do. Yet– never happens. People in pro war movement are asked questions in this vein, and they say look what excellent security we have. What CRAP. Al-Qaida, as advertized, is a fiction. Either it consists of 10 people in a cave and some internet hangers on that are not serious. or we should see some results by now. Contraband comes into the US by the boxcar load full, marijuana, dope etc, and illegal Mexicans pour into the country every day. Somehow this has escaped the attention of binLadin. I don’t buy it. This whole mess, perpetual war against terror, war in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, probably war against Iran, has only one beneficiary. Hint. People that believe the end does justify the means when it comes to Israeli security, and people who have appealed to false flag operations in the recent past. (Lavon etc). If somebody raises the flag of extensial threat to Israel, there is nothing off the table, and I don’t think the Zionist fanatics would disagree with that. — And who gets to decide what is an existential threat? They do- pro settler movement apartied racist US Zionists in the press and the government. That’s who.
@Oldman: Imagine 12 people could possibly sneak across the border from Mexico, (or Canada) each with a bag of contraband- not dope, but a bag of hand grenades each.- And on a appointed weekend they would each to a mall or railroad station in the US and toss the grenades into a crowd. Even if only half of them succeeded, imagine the panic.
Oh absolutely! There are many such options that real terror groups could use to terrify the US population. Even if one wanted to hurt the USA economically, there are extremenly simple things which can be done. For example, it would be extremely easy to bring some natural but extremely virulant virus, such as the “foot and mouth” (Aphtae epizooticae) and very eaily contaminate US cattle in different locations in the USA. That would be quite a economic disaster. And there are many such scenarii some putative ‘al-Qaeda’ could follow if it was really in the business of trying to hurt the USA.
And I agree wity your cui bono argument, but that is still only an indirect evidence. The “smoking gun” is really the nano-termite in the WTC buildings and the fact that ONLY a US government entity (whether formal or not) could have such access.
That the 3 WTC buildings were brought down by explosive demolition is really indisputable by now and I thinkt that this is the main and ONLY argument we must now hammer over and over and over again to all those are confused and lost in the huge maze of 9/11 events and indirect proofs of something wrong in the official goverment conspiracy theory.
At least for me that was the “aha!” moment, the big “Eureka!” when I understood that denying it any longer makes absolutely no sense.
Richard Gage’s Blueprint for Truth 2008 presentation (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032#) is what did the trick for me.
oldman- I will read the url you gave later today, but the point requires a repeatable experiment. Where can anybody get a load of 911 dust with verifiable provenance, and with repeatable, public, and airtight lab procedures, prove the existence to even a skeptic, on purely technical grounds. This is high bar, and skeptics can magnify any flaws at every step, so the drop dead evidence aspect might be blunted. I saw the stuff on foreign TV and it was compelling, but we need 1) provenance checking of the dust. 2) repeatable lab procedure beyond reproach.
A low tech examination of the evidence for this THING called Al-Qaida to exist with the funding and agenda attributed to it is the context free- non refutable argument to me — for now. It would be great of somebody could jump the gap to direct physical evidence of nano- thermite. I will read the url though. Thanks.
@oldman: the link I gave points to a presentation about the collapse of the buildings by Richard Gage. The proof of the nano-termite is found here:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
That paper was not published at the time when Gage made his 2008 presentation.
HTH
@oldman: another good one is here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
cheers!
VS
very powerful stuff. I downloaded the articles. They have lots of technical detail though but the most assumption free argument is probably the strongest. If I presented these articles (which I believe to be true) to skeptics I know, their eyes would roll and the job of verifying the many many assertions made would be on my head. People on the street are very suspicious at arguments based on valid but detailed technical analysis. It would take a court like cross examination by experts on both sides, followed by independent verification and re-sampling the 911 dust to the common satisfaction of all. A huge undertaking with both sides agreeing to rules of fairness and a spirit of open honest inquiry. These people have done a super job, and I believe they are right, but if want to convince the Joe sitting on a bar stool next to you, a minimal assumption argument is probably all you can use to any effect.
@oldman: yes, you are absolutely correct. I intended the reference for you, really. However, I think that for the guy in the street the best kind of materials are movies like the latest “Loose Change” or “Fabled Enemies”. Handing out DVDs with such movies is, I think, one of the best ways to get folks thinking.
Saker,
Your experience in Melbourne with the aggessive “truther” reminds me of a Peace March I attended in 2008 in St. Paul Minnesota. A couple hundred “anarchists” showed up, supposedly to confront the Republican Party who were having their convention. The “anarchists” threw rocks through windows, set off smoke bombs and fought the police, all in full view of hundreds of cameras. When I returned home, my neighbors were shocked that I had attended such an event, assuming I was one of the rioting “anarchists.”
As I thought about the event, I realized the anarchists were not anti war at all. They were provocateurs; their purpose was to promote war by posing as anti-war protesters, thus associating the anti-war movement in the minds of the TV-watching masses with violent, bomb-throwing idiots.
Let me suggest, Saker, that the “truthers” we witness at such events as in the video are not truthers at all, but provocateurs. Their purpose is make us all look like idiots, so the truth movement is sabotaged, and the true culprits of 9/11 are not revealed.
You call this element of the “truth” movement the 9/11 Gestapo. I call them Kosher 9/11 Truth. They are, to a man and woman, Jews. Their goal is to sabotage genuine 9/11 truth, since that truth inevitably leads to Mossad, the state of Israel, and Zionism in general. The reason they love to pursue Goodman, Chomsky and other Jews has nothing to do with anti-Zionism; it is because these fellow Jews are more likely to play along with their game.
I am responding here because I have been banned from 911Blogger, as has everyone else who points out evidence that points to Tel Aviv. In the future, if you want to discern a genuine truther from the provocateurs, ask him what he thinks Israel’s role was in 9/11.
@Andy: first, let me welcome you here and assure you that I will never ban anybody on the basis of “crimethink” or heretical views.
As for your point, I have to honestly tell you that I have an extremely strong feeling that, indeed, the Israelis are involved in 9/11. Alas, I have seen absolutely no evidence of that. I am, right now, listening to the recent interview of Dr. Saborsky on The Ugly Truth (http://theuglytruth.podbean.com/2010/03/14/the-ugly-truth-podcast-march-15-2010/) in which Saborsky, who was the former director of studies at the US Army War College, says that there are plenty of people in the US military who already know that the Mossad did it. Well, maybe they do, but I have no proof of it…
Where I disagree with you is when you seem to imply that Goodman or Chomsky are somehow “covering up” for other Jews. See, I don’t see an identity between Jews and Zionism, I really don’t. Trust me, if I did I would say so, but I really really don’t. And I don’t believe that anti-Zionist Jews like Chomsky or Goodman would somehow cover up for Zionist Jews. With all due respect, here you and I would have to disagree.
Check out Goodman allowing David Ray Griffin to be set up and sabotaged by that creep Gerald Posner. That show was supposed to be an interview, at the last second it was changed into a debate. Leftgatekeeping Soros funded limited hangout.
So, I think the We Are Change guys were on the right track, but I have to agree that their tactics are self defeating and they need to wise up, but so do most kids.
@JSvj: can you provide a link please?
Thanks!
Sorry, it was Chip Berlet. Here is the broadcast.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/26/the_new_pearl_harbor_a_debate
IIRC Griffin comes off rather poorly but what is not mentioned is that this was to be an interview, just Goodman and Griffin, about his book, not a debate. Do some googling on Berlet too.
Here is a typical complaint among many at the time:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/289545.shtml
There’s nothing odd about having Berlet debate Griffin. Some of Goodman’s most devoted viewers would have insisted that Griffin should be challenged, rather than just given the floor. Truthers get mad that she didn’t just give the show over to Griffin. But there are some critics of Griffin who would have been mad had she done that. The Berlet-Griffin debate was a compromise. Truthers just didn’t like it.
> Who can imagine a cadre of determined men with modest finance, and the alleged Al-Qaida agenda could do. Yet– never happens.
All that that really proves is that the Al Qaeda menace has been somewhat exaggerated, like with the story of ties alleged between Saddam and Osama. That does not actually give us an argument that anyone other than the 19 hijackers carried out 911.
The whole 911 package, neatly tied up for public assumption, and the virulent Al Qaida hypothesis, needs to be discredited in the public eye as a first step to uncovering what I believe to be a false flag. Once cracks appear in this facade, questions flood in. If 19 joe schmoes from a mosque in Hamburg did 911 substantially alone, and that all there is to it, why has the massive pumped up al Qaida myth been ginned up to rationalize wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the patriot act, and probably war against Iran? Eyes will turn toward Israel, and their effort to defeat their arch enemy Iran and Hezbollah. Iran is now surrounded by US troops, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war clouds are gathering on trumped up wmd issues again. The point is to crack the official story open, and this will allow a true investigation of 911 in the public eye. From that point, we can move into nano thermite, buiding 7 etc, but right now, the public does not get why and who might do such a thing, so they need an alternative hypothesis to begin the discussion. You are right though in that if if the hypothesis is wrong, then there remains the posibility that 19 shomes from Hamburg did the whole thing- period, but once the official deamon Al Qaida story is cracked, this 19 shmo theory and the Israeli false flag theory can both be examined on merit for the first time in public. People will start to read Richard Gage, and demand a debate. That the start we need.
@everybody: I am listening to the Berlet-Griffin debate right now. I would say that Griffin was given a fair chance and that some of his “cumulative” set of facts does have some very weak sections. For example, I think that Griffin is wrong about the Pentagon surrounded by missile batteries, I think that he is wrong about the “military plane” at the Pentagon, and others.
But there is no way this debate was a hatchet job. It was a fair debate and Griffin was given a fair chance.
Notice that this is 2004. Nowadays, this debate would have gone into a VERY different direction.
I would say to thanks to criticisms like the ones made by Berlet MADE OUR MOVEMENT MUCH STRONGER.
Let me be clear, the point I was making was that this was to be an interview and it was changed at the last moment. You may think that is fair but I don’t. I call it sabotage.
Let me invite you to a party at my house but right before you arrive I’ve decided it’s going to be a wrestling match instead of a get together. Do you see what I mean?
That’s what an honest truther would be mad and suspicious about, not having a debate.
Missiles were installed at the White House after a plane crashed on the lawn in, I think, 1994?
@JSvj: Let me invite you to a party at my house but right before you arrive I’ve decided it’s going to be a wrestling match instead of a get together. Do you see what I mean?
Yes I do. But, frankly, anybody who has had contacts with the media knows that reporters are always up to something like that. Besides, any interview can turn into a wresting match with the reporter anyway. That is why I personally have a golden rule to never EVER talk to reporters. Of course, Griffin could not do that, but he should have known better than to expect a real “party”.
Missiles were installed at the White House after a plane crashed on the lawn in, I think, 1994?
Stinger type missiles might have been available to the USSS, but I am quite confident that no real air-defense system was protecting the Pentagon. I say this not because I know that for a fact, but because the USA *never* had any kind of real air defense since it did not fear airstrkes (that is the advantage of being an imperial and agressive power, I suppose). Even the famous air patrols over Alaska and Canada are more for show, “showing the falg”, than real air defense.
I believe that Dr. Griffin was saying that the Pentagon was defended by a real air defense perimeter with IFF systems i.e, something much bigger than a few MANPADS carried by the USSS.
I cannot prove a negative, of course, but I am extremely dubious about this thesis and I would be willing to bet that no such air defense system was ever deployed (if only because of Reagan/National airport being way to close to use normal IFF procedures).
Fair enough Saker. I’d have to review the video, I’m operating from what I remember of the video years ago, but I stand by my statement that to change a interview to a debate at the last moment isn’t a fair tactic regardless of whether one should or shouldn’t be familiar with reporter’s tactics and regardless of whether Griffin blew it or not.
Griffin ought to review the Johnny Carson show with Jim Garrison.
For Amy Goodman to cross that invisible line is a difficult thing to do. This line being the one that delegitimizes our most revered institutions, namely the presidency.The JFK cover up is a good example.
If we need a full blown revolution, there aren’t many who would want to set it in motion, especially without a good Plan B. Not to mention the fact that a good portion of Americans are content with “business as usual”.
This is evidenced in the lack of grief we, as a country,have for the six hundred thousand plus dead Iraqis and the 4.2 million who have fled their country.
Things will have to get much worse here, and they will, before there is solidarity among the masses of this country that real change needs to happen, and that it needs to happen right now, BEFORE they lock us away.
@johnConnor: For Amy Goodman to cross that invisible line is a difficult thing to do. This line being the one that delegitimizes our most revered institutions
Sadly, I have to agree with you. I respect Amy Goodman, but I am quite aware that there is only that far she can go. Before she crosses any such line she will also think that she is about to look x% of her audience, supporters and, frankly, contributors. She pokes here and there, she beats all around the bush, but she will DEFINITELY not cross any of the invisible lines you mention. You don’t become “DemocracyNow!” without also becoming a “legitimate opposition”, a “respectable” institution, a “non-extremist” show. The truth, of course, requiers that one accept to cross these lines, and become “illegitimate”, “non-respectable” and “extremist”, at least in the eyes of the Nomenklatura which runs the US Empire.
JohnConnor, thanks a lot for posting your thoughts on my blog. I am deeply grateful to you!
@ connor, I have to agree. In some ways it doesn’t matter what the details are about Goodman. I mean, if it’s limited hangout than just walk thru it.
I did a little checking on the background of this show and didn’t know that there was a concerted effort to get Goodman to do something on 9-11. It succeeded and hence the bitter disappointment from the Truthers when Griffin was less than mind-blowing. I downloaded and watched it again. It’s not so bad and Saker is right when he said that things would be very, very different today especially when Goodman asks for just one engineer who questions the official story. Today Griffin could point to a lot more than one.
Anyway, to the original entry, I think this explains the origin of the animus that the WeAreChange people have toward Goodman and while I share Saker’s discomfort with the video posted, I think, FWIW, that understanding how it came about is useful for.. well, for whatever understanding is good for.
JSvj said: “So, I think the We Are Change guys were on the right track, but I have to agree that their tactics are self defeating and they need to wise up, but so do most kids.”
Yeah, seems they are trying to sack their own quarterback. That is what is produced in our education system, kids who aren’t getting the proper lessons in life. It leaves them like fish out of water.
As far as 911 is concerned, all I gotta say is:
Where are the 2/6 ton engines and the video from the Pentagon crash?
&
3 buildings falling into their own footprint at free fall speed?…not a chance in hell!