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

9.11 investigation | imperialism & war

Village Voice Tries to Smear 9/11 Activists, Again

Here are my notes about the below article, briefly. How does this latest writer attempt to trash the 9/11 movement? I'll take a look. Small comments, and overall a sense of craziness added to those working to expose 9/11 truth, instead of portraying real people asking real questions - it's more like a sideshow than anything else. 3000 Dead and no one was fired? This writer could care less. What really matters is how disconnected from reality those 'conspiracy theorists' are.
We must be doing something right because in less than one week, assorted media have come out swinging, first Maxim, then Counterpunch, now (as ever) the Village Voice with its mixed but mostly smearing efforts.

- "the largely (but not exclusively) white and male crowd"
Does anyone point that out about a Bush meeting? How about the US Senate?

- "Loose Change . . . Painful Deceptions, Confronting the Evidence, 911 in Plane Site, 9-11 Eyewitness."
Each one of these contains a TON of bogus information, typically mixed with the real info. She never asks for DVDs that don't promote disinfo - those of David Ray Griffin or the International Inquiries.

- "in the immediate aftermath of the attacks their doubts took form on the Internet on sites like serendipity.li, plaguepuppy.net, and Killtown."
These sites promote a lot of the worst nonsense, so how strange would it be that they came out first? Notably, they are the only hotlinks in the story . . . sadly transparent that the legitimate sites are MIA. And who are the people named and examined in detail here?

Dave vonKleist - the UA and AA flights did not hit the Pentagon or the WTC towers
Dylan Avery - the UA and AA flights did not hit the Pentagon or the WTC towers
William Rodriguez - basement bombs brought down the WTC towers (muddies the obvious understanding that the towers collapsed from the top down), claims to have seen a hijacker scoping out the WTC a month before the attacks (thus supports the idea that the hijackers were not patsies)
etc.

Only one reasonable-sounding person is mentioned in detail who does not support the nonsense: environmental activist, Jenna Orkin, who is then described as "distanc(ing) herself from others," rather than the more correct, "distancing herself from the misinformation." These subtle ways to undermine the real people are what articles like this are all about.

-"Some alternative theorists avoid events involving the American Free Press, which has reported several of the vital pieces of the Truth story but has links to the neo-Nazi Barnes Review."
It's surprising that someone actually finally printed this information, and the article is almost worth it for this reason alone. For more on this situation, please see:

"No Planes and No Gas Chambers"
Holocaust Deniers push hoaxes that sabotage 9/11 Truth Movement
 http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html

I note that there isn't any mention of Steven Jones, and he was already on MSNBC well before this article.

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
By Steven E. Jones
 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

A review of the recent media coverage of Professor Steven Jones is here:
 http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html

- "It's odd. For a group of people who harbor so many doubts about the intentions of their own and other governments, the media, and fellow citizens, much of the Truth movement does not suspect for a moment that our defense spending has been a rip-off, that the FBI is a clumsy bureaucracy, that our spy agencies are deaf and dumb, and that our skyscrapers are not 100 percent safe. They do not seem worried that they could be unwitting partners in a more mundane conspiracy to obscure the limits of security and science."
This is the classic argument that's used to cover the crimes - "Oops!" People like Prof. Steven Jones show that the WTC towers, no matter how poorly constructed, could not have fallen the way they did, nor would a tower that no plane ever hit. The wargames on 9/11, never addressed in this article, show us that it wasn't just incompetence or coincidence:

Complete 911 Timeline: Military exercises up to 9/11
Project: Complete 911 Timeline
 link to www.cooperativeresearch.org

"War Games" by the US military on 9/11
paralysis of air defenses that ensured the success of the attacks? who coordinated these efforts?
 http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

War games in progress on September 11, 2001
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 link to en.wikipedia.org

When you actually look at the sitaution, you find that the unanswered questions of 9/11 have little to do with mistakes, and much more to do with billions and billions and billions of dollars being transferred from average Americans to the rich and super-rich in the wars and fascist ventures that have arisen on the back of 9/11.

Of course, that wouldn't make for a nice trashing on the 'conspiracy theorists' to end on, now would it.

----------------------------------------------------

The Seekers
The birth and life of the '9-11 Truth movement'
by Jarrett Murphy
February 21st, 2006 11:48 AM
 http://villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72254,6.html

Essentially, it's all about physics and common sense. Cut steel, and buildings fall. Crash a plane, and the Earth gets scarred. Fire a missile; see a hole. What's up must come down, cause makes effect, and for the truth to set you free, it must be freed itself.

It's dark in the basement of St. Mark's Church and dark outside on a mid-December Sunday night, but inside they have seen the light. Among the 100 or so people in the room, many wear buttons that read "9/11 Was An Inside Job." Others grip the vital texts in their hands—Crossing the Rubicon, The New Pearl Harbor, or 9/11 Synthetic Terror. Most in the largely (but not exclusively) white and male crowd can quote you the important passages from "Rebuilding America's Defenses" or The 9/11 Commission Report. A few can guide you through the details of concepts like "peak oil" and pyroclastic flow. All of them suspect—and a few simply know—that their government was somehow complicit in the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans four Septembers ago.

They are watching the new edition of Loose Change, a slick, witty documentary featuring a hip soundtrack and a rapid-fire assault on nearly every aspect of the "official" story of 9-11. The work of 22-year-old filmmaker Dylan Avery, Loose Change came out last year to take its place in a growing library of DVDs that 9-11 skeptics can own: Painful Deceptions, Confronting the Evidence, 911 in Plane Site, 9-11 Eyewitness. Shown in similar gatherings around the country and passed among likeminded friends, the films are what tie together the disparate ends of what many of its members call the "9-11 Truth movement." They unite Luke Rudkowski, an earnest Brooklyn College freshman, with David Ray Griffin, a California theologian who wrote The New Pearl Harbor. They link Les Jamieson, a web designer and coordinator for New York 9-11 Truth, with multimillionaire Jimmy Walter, dreamer of car-free, self-sustaining cities. And they bind a FDNY lieutenant attending his first Truth movement meeting with Michael Ruppert, the Crossing the Rubicon author who blames a fiancée's CIA-and-Mafia-linked drug running and arms dealing for helping to drive him out of the LAPD two decades ago.

It's easy to dismiss the odd characters. It's harder to ignore the regular guys in the room, or the polls showing that 49 percent of New York City residents believe the government knew about 9-11 before it happened, or the rock-solid certainty of these supposed doubters. "I'd love to be proven wrong. I would love for someone to come to me and say I'm full of shit. It hasn't happened," says Avery. "I have scientists on my side. There's so much evidence supporting my side, and the government's side has nothing."

Its name notwithstanding, the 9-11 Truth movement tells a story—and is a story—about what happens when the government lies. Again, it's simple physics: For every action, there's a reaction equal and opposite.

Everyone has a September 11 tale about how we watched the events in "disbelief." But some people really didn't believe, and in the immediate aftermath of the attacks their doubts took form on the Internet on sites like serendipity.li, plaguepuppy.net, and Killtown. "They were a group of conditioned conspiracy theorists who have been around since JFK and before," says Steve Ferdman, now a 22-year-old marketing major at the New York Institute of Technology, who joined the Truth movement well after the attacks. "They knew how to get the ball rolling immediately. The moment it happened, the conspiracy theories were flying."

It wasn't long before the theories made it to Internet radio—and to shows like The Power Hour. Host Dave vonKleist was no stranger to telling alternate stories: His wife was an early Gulf War illness activist, they fled Houston ahead of Y2K, and his three-hour show deals with subjects like depleted uranium and vaccine fears. On 9-11, he recalls, "I got on and said, 'Ladies and gentlemen, this is Dave and before we even say good morning, run to your VCR and start taping. America is under attack.' " As he sat glued to the TV that day, he grew suspicious when the networks went to the file footage of the tall Arab with the gun. "They were still talking about what kind of plane hit," he says, "but they sure as hell knew that Osama did it, and I said, 'Wait a minute.' " These doubts lay dormant for months until vonKleist happened upon Hunt the Boeing, a French website. France was an incubator for many 9-11 doubts. Thierry Meyssan's 2002 book L'Effroyable Imposture (The Horrifying Fraud) spawned deeper inquiries, including vonKleist's film 911 in Plane Site.

While the Pentagon story attracted people because so little was seen or known about that attack, the demise of the World Trade Center was burned in collective memory. Eric Hufschmid, a software designer from Santa Barbara, took the attacks at face value on 9-11 and even mocked the nascent conspiracy theories. "Then I started looking at it," he tells the Voice. "It was obvious something was wrong at the towers. They looked like they'd been blown up." He began contacting engineering professors, asking them to look into it, but none did. So he took up the cause himself, penned the book Painful Questions in early 2002, and produced the companion movie, Painful Deceptions, a few months later.

Around the same time, Dylan Avery was completing a job as a helper on the construction of a new restaurant for James Gandolfini. He tended bar at the opening party, and when he got a few minutes alone with the Sopranos actor, he said he'd thought he might like to direct films. "James said, 'If you want to be a successful director, you've got to have something you want to say to the whole world,' " Avery remembers. He set out to write a fictional story about discovering that 9-11 was an inside job. "Upon researching the movie, I began to think maybe it was true," he says.

The movement's momentum picked up in 2004 as George W. Bush sought re-election, the 9-11 Commission finished its work, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued preliminary findings on the building collapses. Members petitioned New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer to convene a grand jury on the attacks. New figures emerged, like Kevin Ryan, a scientist at the testing firm that certified the steel used in the twin towers, who was fired after he wrote a letter to NIST faulting its findings, and William Rodriguez, a janitor at the twin towers credited with saving lives on 9-11.

Rodriguez has filed a federal RICO suit against Bush, the president's father and three brothers, the Republican National Committee, Alan Greenspan, Halliburton, several voting-machine companies, and others. He claims that the president and his administration participated in "approval and sponsorship of the 9-11 attacks, kidnapping, arson, murder, treason" in order to "obtain a 'blank check' to conduct wars of aggression, to consolidate economic and political power."

"The guilt of the defendants," the suit alleges, "is compellingly suggested by their myriad lies, their thwarting of any proper investigation, and their stonewalling and failure to truly cooperate even with the . . . Commission 'investigation.' "

It is a matter of public record that the government did not always voluntarily tell the whole truth about 9-11. In the first days after the tragedy, the EPA said the air was safe (see "Truth Out," page 32). The Bush administration claimed there had been no warnings of the attacks. A congressional inquiry was prevented from discussing information the intelligence community provided to the White House. The White House resisted forming an independent commission, stalled on releasing documents, delayed in allowing Condoleezza Rice to testify in public, and agreed to let the president meet with the commission only on the conditions that there be no oath administered, no formal transcript made, and that Vice President Dick Cheney be at his side. Several members of the commission had to recuse themselves from parts of the probe because their government or private-sector careers posed conflicts. And in its final report, the commission punted on such questions as where the money for the attacks originated, dubbing that issue "of little practical significance."
Comiccon

The long list of obfuscations and obstructions has helped the Truth movement attract sympathizers who don't buy the idea that the attacks were planned by the government. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia has taken up some of the movement's themes. Actor Ed Begley Jr. co-hosted a September 11, 2004, Truth event in New York because of his environmental concerns. "As to the other more fantastic theories about the events of 9-11, I don't care to comment, other than to say that they have raised some very interesting questions that I would love to see answered," Begley tells the Voice in an e-mail.

Another environmental activist, Jenna Orkin, also admires aspects of the movement but distances herself from others. "I think it's terribly important," she says, "to distinguish between the legitimate questions and the wackiness—and the wackiness has contaminated the legitimate questions in a very destructive way."

Drawing that line has split the movement. Many Truth activists now dismiss the "pod theory" and its cousin "the flash," which contend that the planes that struck the towers had unusual shapes on their undersides that may have fired missiles. More maligned is the idea that no planes hit the towers—that what we saw were drones or holograms. Even the no-planes-at-the- Pentagon theory divides Truth-ers.

Some alternative theorists avoid events involving the American Free Press, which has reported several of the vital pieces of the Truth story but has links to the neo-Nazi Barnes Review. And almost no one wants to talk about Jimmy Walter, whose money (he offered $1 million for proof that the towers fell because of the fires) helps but whose advocacy of a "no-punishment" society doesn't. The disputes aren't always friendly. VonKleist, a chief proponent of the pod theory, says the movement "has been heavily infiltrated." And Hufschmid labels most of the movement "part of the criminal movement that did the attack in the first place."

Internecine feuds are not uncommon among people who believe in conspiracies. Yet dubbing Truth movement members "conspiracy theorists" is inaccurate for two reasons. First, there's no doubt that 9-11 was a conspiracy—the question is whether it was among Muslim terrorists or others. Second, many Truth-ers deny having any theory at all. They resist efforts to construct an alternative story of the crime.

"I cannot explain it. That is not my duty," says former German cabinet minister Andreas von B a leader of the 9-11 skeptics in Europe, in a recent Dutch documentary. VonKleist takes the same line. He doesn't theorize anything, he says. "I'm simply asking questions."

That sounds fair at first, only it isn't. The movement's questions imply a different version of the story, and the true test is whether that alternative is more or less plausible that the official one. By saying they're only checking facts, the Truth activists avoid having to address the weaknesses in their own yarn. Why do the "booms" at the trade center come several minutes before the "demolition"? Why would the government destroy WTC7 when no one knew or cared about it? What happened to the people on the planes?

Some skeptics, however, aren't shy. Fringe pol Lyndon LaRouche thinks the attacks were "an attempted military coup d'état." Hufschmid says the Arab terrorists were patsies of several governments, including the U.S. and possibly Britain, France, Canada, and Israel. Ruppert, an adherent of the theory that oil reserves have peaked and that the petroleum-based economy is in great peril, postulates that 9-11 was a desperate effort by a couple dozen elites from the Clinton and Bush administrations to cling to dwindling energy supplies. His version stresses the links between the CIA and Wall Street and drug money, suspicion of the Secret Service, and a plot to rid the world of 4 billion people in order to reduce demand for petroleum.

For passengers detraining at the PATH station and climbing the stairs to ground zero on a typical Saturday, the 9-11 Truth movement is hard to miss. There at the exit stand Jamieson, Rudkowski, and a few compatriots holding a large banner declaring "9/11 Was an Inside Job." Pamphlets are handed out, and some of the vital books of the Truth movement are at the ready if a passerby wishes to debate, which happens a couple times each week. A woman is labeling as "bullshit" the idea that the entire government was behind the plot. Jamieson shakes his head. "Not the entire government," he says. "Just a small faction."

It's cold, and some passersby laugh. It has not been easy, Rudkowski says, but he sees progress. "At first my family thought I was an idiot," he recalls. "Now they're just scared." Avery and vonKleist say they've each distributed some 50,000 copies of their respective movies, but the total number of people who've seen the films must be far larger, given how often they have been shown to groups small and large. At ground zero, in the church basement, and in interviews, Truth movement members are optimistic their crusade will go far. What is clear is that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for many of them to turn back. Once you believe that official sources cannot be trusted because they are part of the conspiracy, it becomes very difficult to accept any evidence to the contrary.

Take the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief: By forcing its release, the 9-11 Commission showed the world that the president knew something about heightened threats. But to Alex Jones, the anti-government radio host who thinks the FBI plotted the 1993 Trade Center bombing, the PDB episode was just a ploy to make the commission appear independent. When the Voice mentioned to Avery that a key firefighter witness denied ever saying there were "bombs" in the towers, and that San Francisco mayor Willie Brown's "foreknowledge" of the attack seemed to have been limited to something the State Department posted on its website, the director was unfazed. "It's just one piece of evidence," he said about the Brown warning.

He's not alone. Although the Truth movement is quick to seize upon shifts in the government's story, its own version has changed multiple times. Meyssan first said a truck bomb hit the Pentagon, then suggested a drone aircraft or cruise missile did. At first, skeptics said there was too little damage to the interior rings of the Pentagon for the building to have been struck by a 757; now, some say there was too much. The number of hijackers who are supposedly alive has risen and fallen over the years.

The key to understanding the Truth movement is to realize that its members do not lack faith in all institutions of the U.S. government. On the contrary, their theories rely on a healthy respect for the power and competence of air defense units, FBI agents, high-rise building designers, and others.

Why would Bush mistakenly say he'd seen the first plane strike on TV? How could the FBI miss so many leads? Is it plausible that the CIA ignored all those warnings? And after the purported multiple failures of the FAA and NORAD on 9-11, how come no one was fired?

It's odd. For a group of people who harbor so many doubts about the intentions of their own and other governments, the media, and fellow citizens, much of the Truth movement does not suspect for a moment that our defense spending has been a rip-off, that the FBI is a clumsy bureaucracy, that our spy agencies are deaf and dumb, and that our skyscrapers are not 100 percent safe. They do not seem worried that they could be unwitting partners in a more mundane conspiracy to obscure the limits of security and science. To the lies of the Bush administration, many in the Truth movement reply with stunning and familiar certainty. "I can't jump back to the other side," says Avery. "I know that what I'm doing is right.
smug gatekeepers will learn to "see the light" 21.Feb.2006 20:54

Martin S. White martin@naicr.org

When it's too late, these ignorant scumbag gatekeepers are going to find out about
reality. When they do, they'll be crying like hell, but it'll be to late. "Off to
camp with you, mr. and mrs. terrorist sympathizers. I read in your file about how
you admired the 'courage' of the 19 hijackers," is what the antiterrorist squads
will say to them after they kick their front doors down at 4am the day after the
next (large) "terrorist" strike. They'll be the first to be taken out, so just
remember what they stood for, and turn a blind eye, and your mouth shut, it's going
to be poetic justice. See, they've been so assiduously siding with the government's
story in the mainstream, while saying nutty things like "America had it coming to it",
"this is what happens when you oppress so many people in the world." Thus they stick
out like a sore thumb for the fedlers, who will give their own best helpers their own
requite (payback), when they've outlasted their usefulness.

Those who nurture ignorance the way the gatekeepers do need to pay for their crimes.


the FBI did indeed pull the 1993 WTC bombing 21.Feb.2006 21:03

Sheepdog

All you have to do is type in:
FBI +1993 +WTC
That's been in the main stream ( of sh*t ) media.
The 'informant' who organized the plot had a wire on him and recorded
the conversations with his handler, an FBI agent who even supplied the explosives.

How interesting 22.Feb.2006 07:21

tapdance

that if anyone disagrees with your assessments they are working for the CIA or are dupes. Yet you produce no evidence beyond your beliefs and the occasional scientific sounding opinion that falls apart upon inspection.

Furthermore, your reasoning for it being done--that it was the excuse to get us into wars--just falls flat. Look at the wars we get into--you don't need anything like blowing up towers.

It would be funny if minds that otherwise might use their power to work towards a more just world weren't being wasted mentally masturbating concentrating on things they want to be true despite all evidence to the contrary.

Martin's comment is much more viable. You should expect terrorism in your own country when you impose terror on others. That it does not happen more often I think says something ultimately good about people.

'tapdance' claims fealty to his White Supremacist pal, Martin S. White 22.Feb.2006 14:21

reaper

"...that if anyone disagrees with your assessments they are working for the CIA or are dupes."

--this category includes you, 'tapdance' - via your ad hominem response.


"Yet you produce no evidence beyond your beliefs and the occasional scientific sounding opinion that falls apart upon inspection."

--I'm not going to spam a huge, lengthy comment response of the literally mountains of data proving that the 'official' story of 9/11 as promulgated by US government, 9/11 commission and US mass media is a lie, and if you're too lazy to even follow one of the links provided in the originally-posted article then that's your problem (also it's quite simple to use Portland IMC's '9.11 investigation' button from the left-hand page menu for reams of info).

Look into the August 2001 re-assignment of top FBI al Qaeda tracker John O'Neill to the WTC, only to perish a month later, for starters....
 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a081901timessmear
 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a082201oneillquits
 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a082301newjob


"Furthermore, your reasoning for it being done--that it was the excuse to get us into wars--just falls flat. Look at the wars we get into--you don't need anything like blowing up towers."

--Name a single speech given by George W. Bush since September 2001 on foreign policy, that 9/11 hasn't been invoked at least 3 times. Even 'The End of History' neocon Francis Fukuyama thinks the Iraq war was a totally unjustified blunder now  link to www.dailykos.com (although BushCo. now claims the WMDs never mattered--so WHAT was the reason Iraq was pre-emptively, illegally invaded and militarily occupied, again?) and regarding what you need to get into unprovoked wars:
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/index.html

Neither is it only "the excuse to get us into wars" - it's become the "excuse" for permanent war ('The Long War' as articulated by Rumsfeld recently), USA Patriot Act domestic crackdown on individual rights and destruction of US Constitution- so how does this jibe with neocon Francis Fukuyama's claim that terrorism is nowhere near as great a threat as the Cold War Soviet nuclear empire?


"It would be funny if minds that otherwise might use their power to work towards a more just world weren't being wasted mentally masturbating concentrating on things they want to be true despite all evidence to the contrary."

--to the contrary of *****WHAT***** ? the official story has been sketchy since the day it happened, and becomes more tattered and unbelievable as time goes on.  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/332750.shtml The recent upswell in 9/11 skepticism  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/332750.shtml The recent upswell in 9/11 skepticism  link to portland.indymedia.org )has occurred in the wake of Katrina and Iraq military occupation failure, and the more average US citizens question it, USA Patriot Act and all of the illegal Bush regime's actions the better.

"more just world" - you're either with the terrorists, or against us. What are you 'tapdance' (the White Supremacist booster....) doing to stop illegal military genocide in Iraq, Bush-Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld's global prison torture network, slashing of veterans' benefits, preserve health care & social security for working Americans, or even respond to natural disaster in New Orleans?


"Martin's comment is much more viable. You should expect terrorism in your own country when you impose terror on others. That it does not happen more often I think says something ultimately good about people."

--coming from a White Supremacist fascist racist, that's poignant.

And that it has not happened once (not even a bus/car bombing....) since 9.11.01 says something about the veracity of the official story.


We the sheeple 24.Feb.2006 13:27

Faust

The rest of the literate world knows the truth about 9/11.
America is and always will live in a fantasyland dreamscape.
That is what we are programmed to do.
We consume.
That is what we are here for, that is America.
A nation divided by the Hegelian Dialectic.
4 billion will die in the next decade and the micro-chipped sheeple will carry on.

Will voting Democrat save us?
Even if America found out the truth, it would not matter, for America has beeen enslaved by the elite bloodline forever.
The jackboot is about to stomp on your face and you will beg for seconds.