mick silver
26th April 2010, 03:46 AM
http://www.thedailybell.com/994/911-Conspiracy-Theories-Gaining-Momentum.html ... 9-11 Conspiracy Theorist Hits the Road... Infamous 9-11 conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin, whose books insist the Bush Administration and not al Qaeda blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, is launching a speaking tour this week to help merge the "9-11 Truth Movement" with "more traditional Peace and Anti-War groups" against the "illegal and immoral war" in Afghanistan. The tour also presages Griffin's next book, Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. This volume will make much hay over an Obama White House official's article in 2008 as a Harvard law professor, suggesting that the government actively rebut conspiracy theories by networking on social websites. ... Prodigiously, Griffin has been churning out 9-11 conspiracy books since 2004, asserting that U.S. agencies contrived a false flag terrorist attack through controlled demolitions. His first conspiracy potboiler was The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Griffin believes that U.S. history is primarily a long catalogue of conspiracies across two centuries to facilitate American imperialism and aggression. Griffin faults the United States for killing hundreds of millions of people globally through its economic, military and environmental crimes, making the U.S. more murderous than the old Soviet Empire or the Third Reich. – Front Page Magazine
Dominant Social Theme: Another tour to avoid?
Free-Market Analysis: The controversy around 9/11 is nearly a decade old now but it will not subside. People like David Ray Griffin continue to be in demand from a speaking standpoint and the amount of people who don't believe in the official 9/11 story may amount to as much as one-third of US adults. This is a significant problem, in our opinion. When this many people have questions about something so fundamental as 9/11, an erosion of civil society begins to occur. Government becomes the cynosure of suspicions rather than an organizing or socializing influence.
We want to return to 9/11 in this article as a follow to an article posted on Saturday, which attracted a great deal of feedback, and some pushback as well. The Bell examined a posting by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro for Fox News. In the process of rebutting recent accusations about 9/11 in a new book by Jesse Ventura, he made the rather startling claim that "Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building [WTC-7] – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."
We pointed out, along with many others in the blogosphere, that this was a surprising assertion since it can take weeks to wire a building for demolition. And we wrote, "Thus, the blogosphere speculated, either the building was already wired or Larry Silverstein was thinking about wiring it in the future."
However, from the context of the statement, it seems fairly obvious that Silverstein is speaking of demolishing building 7 in a fairly immediate context. This is an important issue because Silverstein has always denied any intention of wiring the building and had explained a way a previous comment of his about "pulling" (demolishing) it. We also wrote that there are other issues swirling around the current 9/11 narrative. For instance, former Attorney General for the state of New Jersey and former senior counsel for the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, has written a recent book on problems the Commission had with government and military testimony. He writes bluntly in his foreword: ""At some level of the government, at some point in time, this book concludes there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened."
Additional questions regarding the official narrative have long been raised out on the 'Net. There is considerable confusion over the names of those who were said to have participated in the hijackings, with some of the alleged hijackers apparently now living in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. Bin Laden denied culpability for 9/11 and the many-storied caves out of which he supposedly worked were never found, nor were the Al Qaeda troops with which he surrounded himself.
Griffin himself has raised questions about the telephones from which victims supposedly called before impact. Cell phones were likely not capable of being used to make calls but there were apparently no onboard phones either on the planes, apparently, so how were calls made to loved ones, he asks. There are even more basic issues, such as why was the World Trade Tower steel supposedly shipped away from the site so quickly, within days when ideally such a vast and intricate crime scene should have been left alone for analysis?
There are literally hundreds of other issues that have been raised on the 'Net regarding 9/11 – some paranoid and some seemingly factual – including the presence, supposedly, of nano-thermite and the additional eyewitness accounts of molten steel puddles that did not solidify for days after the destruction of the towers. Are these perfervid imaginings – and does it matter if they are? The point is that suspicion remains in force for millions, and suspicion can turn to paranoia. Thus, we wrote that a new investigation into 9/11 would go a long way to dispelling confusion and, perhaps, defusing tensions.
It is also important because 9/11 lies at the heart of what America is becoming. It has been responsible for at least two wars in the Middle East and caused a wholesale change in the way Americans relate to their government. Unlimited wiretapping, aggressive monitoring of communications without warrants and other invasive governmental actions have been justified by a supposed need for increased security as a result of 9/11.
We also wrote that in America, "the Patriot Act and other abrogations of traditional American liberties could perhaps be justified on domestic security grounds." However, in no way were we justifying the Act, merely pointing out what the justifications were. Along with many civil libertarians, we believe the erosion of civil liberties in America and Europe are an abomination and that, in fact, there is no justification for them, no matter how "unsafe" the authorities claim certain regions and municipalities might become.
Likewise, we pointed out that there was "no need to accuse the US government or its penumbras (including Israel) of knowingly murdering 3,000 American citizens." We were writing, however, within the context of a potential new investigation. If one DOES contemplate a new investigation of some sort, it is not necessary to state conclusions in advance. The investigation could be an entirely private one, or a quasi-governmental one, or a combination of both. Accusations, meanwhile, wild or not, are not conducive to rational discourse.
Yet questions about 9/11 are obviously not going away. The 911 Commission report didn't even deal with building 7, and Griffin's latest tour (and Ventura's latest book) suggests in fact, that interest in the unresolved issues surrounding 9/11 remains high and may even be growing rather than subsiding. The Internet is partially responsible, as anyone can go online and find thousands of articles and videos that do not currently support the mainstream narrative.
Conclusion: In this article, we've elaborated on some of the other issues that cloud any definitive closure of 9/11 and tried to clarify some points. A commission that sorted through the conflicting claims of 9/11 – even were the commission to be entirely private (a "people's commission," so long as it included credible individuals with appropriate backgrounds) might reach a consensus that was beyond what the 9/11 Commission was able to generate. Such a commission, issuing a further, considered report, might change the course of history (at least a few degrees) while putting to rest at least some of the controversy regarding 9/11, which, as we can see from Griffin's tour, seems to be growing, not diminishing. An investigation that calmly analyzes the continued controversy could, in fact, be considered a patriotic act, in our view, given the present dismal state of societal comity in America. Up to 80 percent of the populace, as a recent Pew poll showed, are distrustful government. An attempt to clear the air when it comes to 9/11 might well be a move in the right direction.
Dominant Social Theme: Another tour to avoid?
Free-Market Analysis: The controversy around 9/11 is nearly a decade old now but it will not subside. People like David Ray Griffin continue to be in demand from a speaking standpoint and the amount of people who don't believe in the official 9/11 story may amount to as much as one-third of US adults. This is a significant problem, in our opinion. When this many people have questions about something so fundamental as 9/11, an erosion of civil society begins to occur. Government becomes the cynosure of suspicions rather than an organizing or socializing influence.
We want to return to 9/11 in this article as a follow to an article posted on Saturday, which attracted a great deal of feedback, and some pushback as well. The Bell examined a posting by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro for Fox News. In the process of rebutting recent accusations about 9/11 in a new book by Jesse Ventura, he made the rather startling claim that "Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building [WTC-7] – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."
We pointed out, along with many others in the blogosphere, that this was a surprising assertion since it can take weeks to wire a building for demolition. And we wrote, "Thus, the blogosphere speculated, either the building was already wired or Larry Silverstein was thinking about wiring it in the future."
However, from the context of the statement, it seems fairly obvious that Silverstein is speaking of demolishing building 7 in a fairly immediate context. This is an important issue because Silverstein has always denied any intention of wiring the building and had explained a way a previous comment of his about "pulling" (demolishing) it. We also wrote that there are other issues swirling around the current 9/11 narrative. For instance, former Attorney General for the state of New Jersey and former senior counsel for the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, has written a recent book on problems the Commission had with government and military testimony. He writes bluntly in his foreword: ""At some level of the government, at some point in time, this book concludes there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened."
Additional questions regarding the official narrative have long been raised out on the 'Net. There is considerable confusion over the names of those who were said to have participated in the hijackings, with some of the alleged hijackers apparently now living in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. Bin Laden denied culpability for 9/11 and the many-storied caves out of which he supposedly worked were never found, nor were the Al Qaeda troops with which he surrounded himself.
Griffin himself has raised questions about the telephones from which victims supposedly called before impact. Cell phones were likely not capable of being used to make calls but there were apparently no onboard phones either on the planes, apparently, so how were calls made to loved ones, he asks. There are even more basic issues, such as why was the World Trade Tower steel supposedly shipped away from the site so quickly, within days when ideally such a vast and intricate crime scene should have been left alone for analysis?
There are literally hundreds of other issues that have been raised on the 'Net regarding 9/11 – some paranoid and some seemingly factual – including the presence, supposedly, of nano-thermite and the additional eyewitness accounts of molten steel puddles that did not solidify for days after the destruction of the towers. Are these perfervid imaginings – and does it matter if they are? The point is that suspicion remains in force for millions, and suspicion can turn to paranoia. Thus, we wrote that a new investigation into 9/11 would go a long way to dispelling confusion and, perhaps, defusing tensions.
It is also important because 9/11 lies at the heart of what America is becoming. It has been responsible for at least two wars in the Middle East and caused a wholesale change in the way Americans relate to their government. Unlimited wiretapping, aggressive monitoring of communications without warrants and other invasive governmental actions have been justified by a supposed need for increased security as a result of 9/11.
We also wrote that in America, "the Patriot Act and other abrogations of traditional American liberties could perhaps be justified on domestic security grounds." However, in no way were we justifying the Act, merely pointing out what the justifications were. Along with many civil libertarians, we believe the erosion of civil liberties in America and Europe are an abomination and that, in fact, there is no justification for them, no matter how "unsafe" the authorities claim certain regions and municipalities might become.
Likewise, we pointed out that there was "no need to accuse the US government or its penumbras (including Israel) of knowingly murdering 3,000 American citizens." We were writing, however, within the context of a potential new investigation. If one DOES contemplate a new investigation of some sort, it is not necessary to state conclusions in advance. The investigation could be an entirely private one, or a quasi-governmental one, or a combination of both. Accusations, meanwhile, wild or not, are not conducive to rational discourse.
Yet questions about 9/11 are obviously not going away. The 911 Commission report didn't even deal with building 7, and Griffin's latest tour (and Ventura's latest book) suggests in fact, that interest in the unresolved issues surrounding 9/11 remains high and may even be growing rather than subsiding. The Internet is partially responsible, as anyone can go online and find thousands of articles and videos that do not currently support the mainstream narrative.
Conclusion: In this article, we've elaborated on some of the other issues that cloud any definitive closure of 9/11 and tried to clarify some points. A commission that sorted through the conflicting claims of 9/11 – even were the commission to be entirely private (a "people's commission," so long as it included credible individuals with appropriate backgrounds) might reach a consensus that was beyond what the 9/11 Commission was able to generate. Such a commission, issuing a further, considered report, might change the course of history (at least a few degrees) while putting to rest at least some of the controversy regarding 9/11, which, as we can see from Griffin's tour, seems to be growing, not diminishing. An investigation that calmly analyzes the continued controversy could, in fact, be considered a patriotic act, in our view, given the present dismal state of societal comity in America. Up to 80 percent of the populace, as a recent Pew poll showed, are distrustful government. An attempt to clear the air when it comes to 9/11 might well be a move in the right direction.