The Huffington Hoax: Conspiracy Theorist Finds Himself Persona non Grata

The Huffington Hoax

December 31st, 2010  

By Bob Fox

Like many liberals/progressives in this country, I was very happy when The Huffington Post was launched on the web in 2005. The left needed a voice on the internet and Huffpo provided it. Being a writer, I also engaged in posting my opinions on many articles at Huffpo over the years as the site became a force on the internet.

But then I started to see some troubling practices at Huffpo. For one, out of every five posts I would submit, I would only have two posted after the moderators at the site looked at my posts. The subject matter involved usually was about the JFK assassination or the events of 9/11. It got me to the point that where I stopped posting at all on the site and rarely visited the site anymore.

In addition to that, I started to see articles in Huffpo that were very disturbing and very similar to the way the mainstream media has reported events like the JFK assassination. Articles like this one for instance. What a bunch of malarkey. That particular story was torn apart by many experts including this excellent retort by Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs.

At the same time I also read this article by Jim DiEugenio and a pattern was evolving. Then earlier this year I heard Governor Jesse Ventura and Dick Russell on Black OpRadio with Len Osanic. Jesse had been promoting his great book American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies, and More Dirty Lies that the Government Tells Us, and he told another very troubling story about what happened with Huffpo. Ventura and Russell wrote a story for Huffpo asking for a new investigation about what really happened on 9/11/01.

The story was posted by Huffpo and then was removed. The post was removed because according to Editor at Huffpo, "The Huffington Post's editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories -- including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post." This is rather astonishing when you consider that the "official account" of 9/11 involved a conspiracy (among 19 alleged hijackers and their control and command by a guy off in a cave in Afghanistan). So Huffpo appears to be telling the world that 9/11 is "off limits"!

Are we seeing a pattern yet folks? Then recently, I saw this outrageous article in Huffpo as well. Shermer doesn't have much credibility as he proved when he debated Fetzer in September of 2007 talking about 9/11 as you can listen tohere. I have also written about how ridiculous the "lone nut" theory is. But Shermer's "expert"opinion ended up in Huffpo. Why? Because Huffpo doesn't want to get out the REAL truth about what happened on 11/22/1963 OR what really happened on 9/11/2001.

More insight about Shermer's "agenda" can be found in a recent column he wrote for scientificamerican.com, of all places. Shermer suggests that conspiracies involve superhuman powers and the knowing involvement of large numbers of persons. That scenario did not take place when John Kennedy was assassinated. It also didn't take place when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. In addition, it also didn't take place when Robert Kennedy was assassinated. And it certainly didn't take place with the events of 9/11.

These conspiracies involved human powers and varying numbers of participants. Each case has to be evaluated on its own terms. Shermer is offering an exaggerated conception of what it takes to have a "conspiracy", while also trying to minimize the chances that they actually take place. It's an old trick folks. It's called disinformation. While he comes across as a personable fellow, most of his comments about conspiracies are simply wrong. As one of his commentators observes, they are factually challenged and poorly reasoned.

That is why he was given the forum of Huffpo to state his "opinion". Because when it comes to the JFK assassination and 9/11, Huffpo only allows people that side with the government explanation as to how those events transpired. It is truly astonishing that a publication like this would "moderate" those who have important points to make that are contrary to its tacit positions. Perhaps they don't want Huffpo to advance understanding of these issues as the commentaries in scientificamerican.com have turned into a tutorial about 9/11!

Yes...I know that Huffpo does some nice work. In the world of politics, it exposes a lot of the lies that permeate the United States and the world today. That is good. But Huffpo also keeps the lid on the two biggest lies ever perpetrating on the American people. That is NOT good.

The MSM (including The Huffington Post)as a whole does not want the truth of the JFK assassination or the events of 9/11 ever to come out. Why? Because they are almost as guilty as the forces that truly committed those heinous crimes. Why? Because they helped cover up the true facts about what really happened during those events. It's too late now to come clean. That is why the Discovery Channel has put out their attempt at disinformation with recent shows about the JFK assassination on the network.

Luckily, these feeble attempts have been ripped to pieces by critics here, here and here. Those are just three examples. There are many more. So why is the Discovery Channel and why is Huffpo covering up the truth about the JFK assassination and also the events of 9/11. Demographics baby! The Huffington Post and the Discovery Channel fall into the demographic group that includes many younger people in this country. My 19 year old son is included in that group, as he is an avid viewer of Discovery Channel (though not the JFK assassination junk thankfully).

The MSM is trying to infiltrate into the younger minds via Huffpo and Discovery, as they know they are losing the battle with the American people as a whole regarding the JFK assassination and the events of 9/11.Only about25% of Americans believe that the Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut assassin in the JFK murder. Even FOX News said that. At least a third of the American public believe that the events of 9/11 happened because of an inside job by the U.S. government as well. That group is growing everyday.

The internet is the reason why the truth is growing in this country. Sites like Black Op Radio and The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer educate people about real facts and not the disinformation that many in the MSM try to feed you. The government and the MSM are trying very hard to suppress the internet as well. Examples are here and here. This past week we also saw the FCC rule on Net Neutrality, which will not help things at all.

I have faith that most of the people in the United States see through this charade, especially the young people. Yes, FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and others will continue to "dumb down" America with their disinformation and rhetoric, but most see through their efforts. What isn't so easy to see are the efforts by Huffpo and the Discovery Channel as they and so many in the MSM try to hide and lie away the two darkest secrets that have ever occurred in America. That is almost as criminal as the events that actually occurred on 11/22/1963 and 9/11/2001.

-###-

Bob Fox has been a writer for http://packerchatters.com/?p=21871, has done work regarding the JFK assassination: http://www.ctka.net/2010/perry.html, and has been on Black Op Radio with Len Osanic and The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer. He is currently a moderator at JFK Murder Solved.com at  http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com

About the Huffington Post:

Website:	huffingtonpost.com
Location:	United States
Funding:	$37M

The Huffington Post is a leading online news source founded by Arianna Huffington, Ken Lerer, and Jonah Peretti. Contributors include more than 3,000 bloggers—from politicians and celebrities to academics and policy experts...

May,2010

Read More

Suppressed 9/11 Footage: Explosions Brought Down World Trade Center Building 7

New 9/11 Footage Reveals WTC 7 Explosions

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 13, 2010

Newly obtained 9/11 eyewitness footage that NIST fought tooth and nail to keep secret contains what appears to be the sound of explosions coming from the vicinity of WTC 7 after the collapse of the twin towers, offering yet more startling evidence that the building, which was not hit by a plane yet collapsed demolition style, was deliberately imploded.

The clip was released by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) as part of a 3 terabyte package of video and photo data in response to a lawsuit brought by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. As we highlighted in our previous report, almost every single video studied as part of the release thus far contains damning evidence of controlled demolition on both the twin towers and WTC 7.

The fact that NIST dragged their feet for so long in an attempt to block the release of these highly incriminating videos clearly indicates that they were part of an attempted cover-up. In addition, the fact that some of the videos appear to have been edited in an effort to hide evidence of controlled demolition is another smoking gun.

The latest video is from eyewitness Richard Peskin, who filmed ground zero from a high rise building that appears to be about a dozen blocks down the street from Building 7. The first portion of the footage is filmed immediately after the collapse of the second tower of the World Trade Center. At about 10 seconds into the clip, two clear explosions can be heard.

The clip then cuts to a later time and the cameraman states, “…explosion or something because there’s a lot of police activity and sirens and more smoke rising from the ground – new smoke – so there was some kind of additional explosion but I don’t know what it was….maybe it was a federal building or something like that,” as the camera pans across a shot of WTC 7.

At around 11am – around half an hour after the collapse of the north tower of the World Trade Center and an hour after the collapse of the south tower, Peskin states, “I still hear continuing explosions, I don’t know what it is,” as small explosions can be heard in the background.

At 1:49 in the clip, a louder rumbling explosion can clearly be heard coming from the direction of WTC 7 – “That’s another explosion,” says Peskin.

The clip was contained in the NIST folder named “Richard Peskin” and is a combination of footage from the files Peskin 25.avi, Peskin 28.avi, Peskin 29.avi, and Peskin 30.avi.

The fact that NIST tried to sit on the footage for months even after a FOIA request and that it took a lawsuit filed by the International Center for 9/11 Studies to obtain the clip clearly indicates that the organization wanted to keep the sound of explosions coming from the vicinity of WTC 7 out of the public record. The footage is filmed from a significant distance away from the scene and shows no detail of anything that could be considered sensitive. The only remarkable thing about the video is the fact that it contains the sound of secondary explosions, something NIST has continually denied was a contributory factor to the collapse of either the twin towers or WTC 7.

In another clip released as part of the same lawsuit, a loud, low-frequency boom can be heard just before the east penthouse of WTC 7 falls. Once the support columns that held up the penthouse are taken out, the rest of the building falls almost within its own footprint.

However, in subsequent clips released by NIST, where the camera is located nearer to the building, the collapse of the penthouse is clearly edited out of the footage.

“Several clips from the Cumulus database show signs of editing. In the two video clips below, the collapse of the penthouse of World Trade Center 7 is cut out of the video. These videos happen to have been filmed from close to WTC 7, and have a high quality soundtrack that would have picked up explosion sounds from the charges that severed the columns supporting the penthouse, especially the explosion heard in the last video clip presented,” comments the International Center for 9/11 Studies.

In another clip, the entire collapse of the building is edited out, the audio is removed and only restored after the building has fully collapsed.

Why is NIST trying to deliberately cover-up evidence of explosions preceding the collapse of WTC 7?

The 9/11 Commission completely ignored the hundreds of survivors, professionals, first responders, firefighters and police who reported numerous secondary explosions at all levels of the twin towers and WTC 7.

NIST’s final report on WTC 7 concluded that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that completely ignored eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that indicated deliberate demolition of the structure.

As we documented for several years, the collapse of WTC 7 is the smoking gun confirming that the official story behind 9/11 is bogus. The collapse of Building 7 was reported before it happened by several news stations, including BBC and CNN.

If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen an hour or more in advance?

Explosions in Building 7 were also reported by eyewitnesses inside the building, including Barry Jennings, who described a “big explosion” that blew him back to the 8th floor.

Former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer was in the immediate vicinity of Building 7 before its collapse at approximately 5:20pm.

“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though,” said Bartmer. “Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself… Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it… Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying… Nothing to account for what we saw… I am shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest.”

Other EMTs and first responders were also told that Building 7 was to be deliberately demolished, including Emergency Medical Technician Indira Singh - another whistleblower.

• “After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke – it is entirely possible – I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage,” said Singh.

Asked who told her that the building was to be “brought down,” Singh responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re gonna have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”

Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.

In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.

“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”

The fact that WTC complex leaseholder Larry Silverstein was considering blowing up Building 7 is now admitted. Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, who was at ground zero on 9/11 working as a journalist, reported earlier this year that Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.

Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me 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 – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building’s collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.

However, obviously aware of how it would impact his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.

In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his infamous “pull it” comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein planned to take down the building with explosives, “meant something else”.

In January 2006, Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S. State Departmentthat the “pull it” comment meant to withdraw firefighters from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan to demolish the building before it fell.

Shapiro’s faux pas unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied, presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.

How much more evidence do we need to conclude that Building 7 – which was not hit by a plane and suffered limited fires across just a handful of floors – could not have simply crumbled into its own footprint within seven seconds without the aid of additional explosives.

Of course, if authorities were ever forced to admit that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished it would then tarnish the credibility of the entire 9/11 official story, which is why NIST has engaged in an obvious cover-up to firstly withhold and then edit some of the footage in an attempt to hide the self-evident fact that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.

—

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

####

Read More

David Ray Griffin v. Cass Sunstein: A New Book Dealing with Tough Truths

David Ray Griffin v. Cass Sunstein

by Stephen Lendman

 http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/

Griffin is Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Emeritus, Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA where he's still co-director of the Center for Process Studies.

He's authored and/or edited three dozen books, mainly in his field, but notably and heroically on 9/11 truth, Osama bin Laden, and his newest titled, Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.  More on it below.

Cass Sunstein is a well-known University of Chicago and Harvard Law School Professor before being appointed Obama's Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, in charge of "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs," among other duties.

Distinguished Law Professor, activist, and international law and human rights expert Francis Boyle said this about both law schools and the University of Chicago's political science department, steeped in neo-con Straussianism:

"Do not send your children to the University of Chicago where they will grow up to become warmongers like (Paul) Wolfowitz and (John) Ashcroft. The University of Chicago is an intellectual and moral cesspool," referring to its political science department and law school. Its extremist economics department is much the same, indoctrinating students with predatory capitalist ideology.

Boyle's "Harvard's Gitmo Kangaroo Law School: The School for Torturers" article advised: 

"Do not send your children or students to Harvard Law School where they will grow up to become racist war criminals! Harvard Law School is a Neo-Con cesspool."

"Harvard is to Law School as Torture is to Law."

Commenting on Sunstein when he was mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, Boyle, calling him a "Neo-Con," said he'd be a "lethal" choice.

Professor Emeritus James Fetzer, Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, took sharp issue with Sunstein's attempt to discredit its proponents, saying his "Conspiracy Theories" report (discussed below) is a "corrosive approach" and "massive blunder" to believe they're "obviously false!" In fact, "No one can know which theories are true or false without investigating them." That a Harvard Law professor would suggest it "is simply stunning," yet unsurprising given the source. 

Fetzer's article can be accessed through the following link:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Birds-of-a-Feather-Subver-by-Jim-Fetzer-100121-980.html 

Sunstein is a notorious neo-con, abhorrent of First Amendment and other democratic freedoms, believing the rule of law is best served by subverting it.

Glen Greenwald's "The Horrible Prospect of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein" article said:

"From the beginning of the War on Terror, Cass Sunstein turned himself into the most reliable Democratic cheerleader for Bush/Cheney radicalism and their assault on the Constitution and the rule of law." He also supports military commissions, illegal surveillance, and "mock(ed) the notion that Bush had committed crimes while in office." 

One of his former students added: "I think (he's) an extremely ambitious man (who'd) run over his grandmother for a seat on the Supreme Court."

Apparently over the country as well, trashing it and the public interest for power, clearly the aim of his "Cognitive Infiltration" proposal.

...In January 2008, he and Adrian Vermeule published a controversial report titled, "Conspiracy Theories," they define as "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

"Many millions of people hold (them); they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event."

Citing 9/11 truth, the reason for their report, they say believers "may create serious risks, including risks of violence....rais(ing) significant challenges for policy and law....The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government's antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be."

His solution - debunk and undermine them by "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups," his modern-day version of COINTELPRO, the FBI's infamous 1960s and 1970s counterintelligence program to neutralize political dissidents, including the American Indian Movement, Black Panthers, and communists, as well as anti-war, human and civil rights activists, among others.

Rebranded, COINTELPRO flourishes more than ever against new targets, including Muslims and others in the "war on terror;" environmental and animal rights activists, and supporters of democratic freedoms over despotism and imperial wars, among others.

Sunstein wants conspiracy advocates neutralized, using "independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks." In other words, destroy them by conspiring against them from within, using illegal and extralegal tactics.

"Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

In June 2009, Sunstein and Vermeule updated their scheme in The Journal of Political Philosophy titled, "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures." The cause - psychological conditions. The cure - elimination by cognitive infiltration, including with "independent experts with information and perhaps prod(ding) from behind the scenes....(but not) too close (to avoid being) self-defeating" if exposed.

In fact, what Sunstein proposed is illegal under statutes prohibiting internal government propaganda, aimed at the public, though legal technicalities have never before been a deterrent.

Nonetheless, according to a March 21, 2005 Congressional Research Service report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) defines "publicity or propaganda" as either official self-aggrandizing, partisan activity, or "covert propaganda," the latter government-originated, disguised to appear otherwise, including by enlisted journalists, corrupting their profession by accepting cash to cooperate, a practice used by the Bush and earlier administrations as well as the CIA and perhaps FBI.

Griffin's New Book - A Powerful Truth Antidote

His new book is an invaluable analysis of Sunstein's proposal to undermine democratic freedoms, airbrush truth, impose censorship, and criminalize individuals who challenge official versions of patent lies, specifically 9/11, the seminal one of our time.

Critics agree, including Professor Peter Phillips, President of the Media Freedom Foundation and Project Censored saying:

Griffin's book should be "entitled 'the Courage of David Ray Griffin' (for) His continuing efforts to speak truth to power regarding issues" as vital as 9/11. Project Censored strongly recommends it at a time our democratic freedoms are at risk, including dissent, what Howard Zinn called "the highest form of patriotism."

Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott called Griffin our "preeminent (9/11) expert....his research....consistently careful, thorough, and objective." His new book provides "a patient, point-by-point and much needed refutation" of Sunstein's dangerous proposal. "He relentlessly shows how (he's) guilty of the very mentality he warns against: close-mindedness and refusal to debate. Those who seek to prevent 2010 from becoming 1984" must read this invaluable book.

Professor Emeritus Richard Falk said Griffin wrote "a devastating critique, (using) his formidable philosophical and theological skills."

Cyril H. Wecht, past President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences and the American College of Legal Medicine called the book "brilliantly written....a scholarly dissection of (Sunstein's) sociopolitical proposal....," one essential to expose and oppose.

Discussing Sunstein's 10 theses, Griffin deconstructs their flaws, contradictions, and dangers to a free society.  He also explains the legitimacy of 9/11 truth, and Sunstein's inability to refute it by disinformation, lies, suppression of facts, stifling debate, and attacking proponents.

What Obama did on September 23, calling Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 9/11 truth comments to UN General Assembly:

"hateful (and) inexcusable, particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation...."

Others attacked the comments as "abhorrent and delusional," no matter that millions around the world share them (including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth), calling the event a crime, debunking the official account as deceitful, untrue, and destructive to democratic freedoms.

Ahmadinejad, in fact, suggested "three (possible) viewpoints:"

1. "That a very powerful and complex terrorist group" successfully circumvented US intelligence, Washington's position.

2. "That some segments within the US government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime."

He said most Americans "as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view." European polls suggest it. US polls vary and have largely ducked the issue by not asking precise questions.

3. "It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation."

Ahmadinejad "proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group...." He also criticized Washington for using the attack as a pretext for war against Iraq and Afghanistan. These views are verboten in the West, those expressing them pilloried as unpatriotic or worse.

Griffin is the preeminent 9/11 truth proponent and consummate scholar. Using his masterful skills, he demolishes Sunstein's arguments, ones based on disinformation, deceit, and bad analysis, not up to the standards of an accomplished liar, and no match for Griffin.

Thomas Fletcher summed it up saying:

Griffin's book "is a lucid and compelling exposure of the contempt held by the official (9/11 myth) defenders for dissenters who have seen through their Big Lie." They also fear truth that reveals their ugly agenda. "These officials expect that no one will be able to penetrate the murk of Sunstein's latest defense of the pretext for the US wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, now covertly expanding" globally. Truth is a powerful disinfectant, what government conspiracists most fear.

Some Final Comments

On September 12, Professor Denis Rancourt titled an article, "Why we love to hate conspiracy theories: 911 Truth as threat to the intelligentsia," saying:

Many on the left share guilt with the right by "vehemently attack(ing) and ridicul(ing) 'conspiracy theories' such as the present 911 Truth movement."

Why, he asks? "Is that not the modus operandi of power? Is it so difficult to believe that (the 911 attack) was not orchestrated by....religious zealot(s)? Or that those who measurably benefitted" had everything to gain? "What ever happened to 'war is a racket' and 'follow the money?' "

At issue is that "power owns the media, (and) more importantly....our jobs" and lives in other respects. Even more important than truth is how it's used - to "rebel, actually rebel and individually take back power over (our) lives." Instead, too many of "the intelligentsia" protect themselves and "the system" by being "a visceral opponent of 911 Truth....in order for power to save face."

Let others fight the good fight they may feel, but unless enough do, putting a lot on the line, wrong will prevail over right and squeeze harder for even more of what they want.

Perhaps the next "9/11" will be a mushroom-shaped cloud or other comparable state-sponsored "disaster," again blamed on foreign adversaries as a pretext for more war. Why not, given America's permanent war agenda, a topic addressed in an earlier article, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/03/americas-permanent-war-agenda.html

                            ####

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Read More