State of Dis Union
Not logged in
GREEN MOUNTAIN TRUTH TALK: 9/11 - Common Misconceptions
Submitted by Greg Nixon on Fri, 02/01/2008 - 11:46am.
Misconception 1: 9/11 Truth discredits anti-warJanuary 26th at UVM was a rally, a "One Movement March, part of a Global Day of Action, for another World" where Senator Sanders was in attendance. Unfortunately, this vision for "another World" didn't include exposing the lies around a phony War on Terror" The alleged radicals of the "Left" apparently couldn't bear to have our banner "USA did 9/11" on display and asked us to leave. The COINTLEPRO leadership of the ISO (International Socialists Organization) has dictated to the cutlings to NOT discuss 9/11. Many anti war activists seem to think that the 9/11 truth movement discredits efforts to stop the war. They have it EXACTLY wrong! As Webster Tarpley has stated, 9/11 truth is the anti war movement with a brain. The war in Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan began with the lies of foreign terrorists wanting to kill us. By exposing the US military as the source of false flag Arab terrorism, how can the pretense be made to maintain forces abroad? It cannot, and that is why the phony anti war leadership makes sure 9/11 truth stays marginalized. Misconception 2: 9/11 Research is not complete, therefore not trueWhat happened to the passengers? What about the cell phone calls? Often when I post to forums to educate the public about 9/11 these are the questions that first arrive. Skeptics forget that it is not necessary for a complete description of all details of a crime to get a conviction in a court of law. The truth movement has enough evidence to convict the White House and top military brass which carried out the war games and terror drills -we have at the very least shown the official story to be impossible. While I have good answers to what likely happened to the passengers(*1), it in no way means that without a complete theory around the attacks, the whole inside job thesis in bunk too. Misconception 3: LIHOP/MIHOP SameLIHOP/MIHOP (Attacks:Let it happen on purpose/Made it happen...)Some claim both stances are equally treasonous and it doesn't matter and only divides the "movement". LIHOP means there really were Arab terrorists trying to kill us and thus even after jailing the 9/11 enablers, there would still be a need for a "war on terror". There is no evidence of real terrorists hijacking any commercial planes so why give the elites an out? Solve the ALL the problems with the verifiable MIHOP thesis and avoid another battle to stop a war. Misconception 4: Cutting edge research hurts mainstream truthCertain research i.e. TV Fakery, and exotic weaponry (DEW) (*2) is not palatable to the public and hurts the movement. It's funny how all the hits pieces on 9/11 truth avoid these topics, if the research is really so silly, why doesn't the press play them up? If the the truth movement want to be about "truth" we have to go where the evidence takes us. Misconception 5: 9/11 Activists are Leftists whackosThe 9/11 truth movement are Lefties that hate our country. While I advocate an independent Vermont, I in no way hate America.The people who investigate crimes of state are concerned citizens and where they fall in apolitical spectrum irrelevant. I invite readers to submit any questions around the attacks of September 11th to be clarified. There is a at least several years worth of research to be read and many of it confusing to newbies. I still recommend Webster Tarpley's: 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in the USA as the most comprehensive explanation of the attacks. (*1) http://911review.org/inn.globalfreepress/Cleveland_Airport_Mystery.html (*2) http://www.drjudywood.com/
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Technorati
dr. judy wood promulgates a laser beams from space "theory" - you can't be serious that you buy her idiocy. webster tarply is a former associate with lyndon larouche, whose writings have been described as disinformation by OIL EMPIRE and numerous sites sympathizing with the “truth” movement. You seem to be part of the “truth” movement that has been dismissed as a cult by many notable thinkers on the left, especially those who are critical of US imperialism, and bush/cheney of the basis of REALITY. as george monbiot states in his insightful article “The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward's cult”
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12187
that the worst of the truthers “are destroying the movements which some of us have spent a long time trying to build.” you don’t accept that bernie see no conspiracy - you have the secret wisdom. you don’t accept that ralph nader sees no conspiracy or controlled demolitions - only you have the secret wisdom. you weave a web of paranoia that goes beyond what even the “mainstream” truth movement can’t support.
you should be dropped from tis website, and i encourage all who agree that you are using secession as a stalking horse for your delusional ravings to contact rob williams and the editors of VT commons to weigh in on this important matter. and further "I invite readers to submit any questions around the attacks of September 11th to be clarified" BY ME at marcawodey@mac.com - for links to impartial, non-echo chamber sites. and if you are brave enough, well researched debunking sites... the "facts" of the truth fad are well known and have been totally demolished on the basis of critial thinking, logic, and scientific proof in peer reviewed publications.
Vermont Commons' publishing team is well aware of the various debates and controversies swirling around the incidents of September 11, 2001. After months of research and ongoing conversations several years ago, the entire publishing team - publisher Ian Baldwin, associate publisher Rick Foley, and myself - decided that the unanswered questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks merited further exploration.
Vermont has an active and outspoken "9/11 Truth" community - and, as we feel like the 9/11 attacks are a small piece of a much larger puzzle, we invited Greg Nixon, a member of that community, to blog about it. In his own research, Greg is doing something very few other researchers in Vermont are doing - connecting the 9/11 attacks with the rise of what Canadian journalist Naomi Klein, author of THE SHOCK DOCTRINE (2007), calls the "military/industrial/terror complex."
Of course, many will disagree with Greg's perspective on 9/11 - and it is in these disagreements and subsequent conversations that we may choose to pursue 9/11 questions in our own way and time.
For my part, I simply suggest that, before individuals rush to judgment about 9/11, regardless of their point of view, they take the time to read the official 9/11 Commission Report, and well-sourced critiques of it. Greg recommends Webster Tarpley's book. I recommended David Ray Griffin's "9/11 Commission Report:
Omissions and Distortions" and Michael Ruppert's "Crossing The Rubicon" - both of which make for provocative reading.
And while I don't always agree with either Greg or Marc's point of view, both are interested in the 9/11 conversation.
May it continue.
the republic of vermont must not come into the world as a one party state, and i truely appreciate VERMONT COMMONS' willingness to allow a free echange of ideas on this site and in the paper.
all concerned about 9/11 claims should also visit the website of oilempire http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html for its view of "crossing the rubicon" and similar books that hype explosives "theories" without empirical proof. i disagree with many of its lines of inquiry, but oil empire is a respected peak oil site - and sympathetic to many aspects of the "truth" movement, yet it also has the backbone to say "the position of oilempire.us is that the towers were intentionally demolished by the Bush administration, but the method of destruction was allowing (and possibly steering) Flight 11 and Flight 175 to crash into the buildings. The sober and fantastical claims for explosives, thermite, and even exotic unconventional weapons are not supported by peer reviewed, independently verifiable investigations and are an enormous distraction from solid evidence."
also read chip berlet's review of david griffin's "new pearl harbor" and griffin's smoke and mirror response. http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.
also the most recent NIST report about building 7
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf
it's barely more than a year old, much of the truther criticism of the NIST is about the lack of findings of the NIST - PRIOR to the completion of this report.
and you don't have to read all 585 pages of the 9/11 commission report to realize the absurdity of controlled demolitions, judy wood's laser beams, and griffin's missles hitting the pentagon.
to imply critics of the "truth" fad are uninformed is hubris. truther claims have been widely broadcast in blogs, videos, books and websites. people have heard about the no planes claims, and illogical explosions in the WTC ad infinatum. the claims are heard - and written off along with claims about alien bodies at roswell.
and the old "just asking questions" line doesn't cut it anymore, since the truther side has presented not one shred of unbiased science for its demolition claims. any five year old can say "why?" "why?" "why?" you need to be a grown up to accept logical, proven answers that at first you didn't want to agree with.
thanks to clever book and video marketing, 9/11 "truth" became a litmus test for dissenters about 5 years ago, and while the fad is clearly in decline - i must continue to urge secessionists to reject the poison pills of 9/11 conspiracism, sympathy with unsavory forces beyond our borders, and the pitching of personal agendas.
i'm glad to speak personally to your editorial board at your convienence and or debate mr. nixon on the evidence of controlled demolition, shankesville, the pentagon and the actual events of 9/11.
thanks....... marc