portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements united states

9.11 investigation

Breaking through...finally

9/11 Truth movement is finally gaining a foothold among American progressives.
9/11 Truth Starting to Break Through Leftwing Gatekeepers
Is 9/11 truth starting to break through leftwing gatekeeper media? Stories questioning the official version of 9/11 have run in the last couple of days in:


Common Dreams;


Air America's Charles Goyette show; and

Air America's Mike Malloy show.

Now that the gate is open an inch, we must redouble our efforts to get the truth through to the public. Maybe we can even get the DC and NYC IMC's to join us. Not to mention Amy Goodman who is still running scared.

Miami Herald 13.Feb.2006 08:24

there too!

For real! Don't have the link handy, but I read it myself.


Tin Hats & Party Favors 13.Feb.2006 14:15


Of course its a conspiracy theory ! The " official " story IS a conspiracy theory !
There is nothing illegitimate about the consideration of conspiracies , they have existed since the begining of human history and they exist today !
It is only corpo media ( to include many established left-leaning sources ) that want to delegitimize any consideration of conspiracy from within because it is too destabilizing for the maintenance of the status quo.


There is a Way 14.Feb.2006 19:30


There is a way to awaken the people en masse.

Here is a good start.

 link to www.libertyforum.org

Re: st911.org 15.Feb.2006 13:44


see related critiques:

The Company We Keep
by Michael B. Green, Ph.D.
Version 1.2, February 8, 2006

"The Scholars website displays Professor Jones's article alongside one by David Ray Griffin, and one by James Fetzer, Ph.D. entitled "Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK." A great deal of the Fetzer article is devoted to inflating his own bona fides as both a conspiracy researcher and a philosopher of science by offering an essentially unintelligible technical discussion of epistemology that is grounded in addressing obscure assumptions that are not fruitful for the working scientist interested in theory confirmation. Professor Fetzer is lead to adopt what he calls "abductivism" as the solution to a problem that few if any lay readers can grasp, let alone its "solution." The discussion, in any case, has no bearing whatsoever on what he will say about 911. Nonetheless, given Professor Fetzer's impressive self-promotion we are entitled to expect at least minimal competence when he turns to 911. Alas, this expectation is to be disappointed. My examination is illustrative, not exhaustive."

A Critical Review of:
Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK
by Jim Hoffman

Fetzer advances exactly two theories contradicting the official account of the events of 9/11/01:

* The collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the result of controlled demolitions (the demolition theory)
* The Pentagon was not struck by a Boeing 757 (the no-757 theory)

Fetzer fails to describe any basis for rejecting the official story other than these two theories -- an omission that may lead some readers to assume the case for official complicity in the attacks is much narrower than it actually is. Fetzer expresses a strong conviction that both theories are correct, but suggests that the no-757 theory is stronger. He fails to acknowledge that the no-757 theory is considered a distraction or hoax by the some of the most respected researchers in the community of 9/11 skeptics.

Experts? 16.Feb.2006 18:49


"He fails to acknowledge that the no-757 theory is considered a distraction or hoax by the some of the most respected researchers in the community of 9/11 skeptics."

Just for my own research, who are these experts? Just got done watching Loose Change 9/11: 2nd Edition and they made a pretty interesting case. You should check it out, available for free at google.video.

Also, if there is one bad apple (fetzer?), should we cut down the tree? There are just too many questions left unanswered to muddle the "9/11 Truth Movement" with in-fighting and continuous peer-reviews. While these reviews may be needed, I think it's more important to get people thinking about this issue first, then worry about which theories and/or people are hurting or helping the cause.