The following is an excerpt from an article by Chris Floyd, posted at his site:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1281/135/

Note the last paragraph. What might invalidate his conclusion?

Shadow and Swamp: A Brief Discursion on 9/11
Written by Chris Floyd
Tuesday, 11 September 2007

A commenter asked recently about my take on 9/11. In light of the anniversary (which I noted here; see also Jon Schwarz's piece here), I thought this might be a good time to set out, very briefly, what I think on the subject.

It's really quite simple and, to my mind, self-evident: the "official" story of what happened on September 11, 2001, is not a complete or accurate account. (We should of course speak of official stories, because there have been several shifting, contradictory scenarios offered by the great and the good in the six years since the attack. However, for clarity's sake, we'll stick with the singular for now, and will assume -- as the entire media and political establishment does -- that the report by the Hamilton-Kean 9/11 Commission is the final "official" version.)

http://theprogressivemind.info/2007/09/foundations-for-successful-action.html

Revisions
1 - added more detail in introduction
2 - *NEW* - added section "determine goals and values"

Introduction

Something for 9/11 Truth activists to be aware of when engaged in peaceful demonstrations. Agents provocateur* may try to create an opportunity for police violence. There is an excellent short video at:

http://collateral.blip.tv/file/357302/ . It is on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (aka North American Union), but the lessons surely pertain to 9/11 Truth work.

* I think that provocateur is an adjective, so have not made it plural. Anybody know?

I have been engaged in a spirited exchange at Dissident Voice with Rosemarie, who was trivializing the efforts of 9/11 Truth activists, and embracing the blow-back theory without reservation.

She did hit one of the other posters with the following salvo (below, along with part of my reply), which demands a good response I think. Can any of you help me out on this? I don't feel that I have a completely articulated position on this currently, and could use advise. See: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/911-conspiracy-or-blowback/ for the whole article and comments thread.

mike zimmer said on September 12th, 2007 at 1:58 pm #

Rosemarie,
... you raise legitimate questions here:

Michael Rivero at WRH just posted a link to this information: http://www.hitwise.com/political-data-center/website-rankings.php

Top 10 Political Websites

This list features the websites for key political party websites based on US Internet usage for the week ending September 8, 2007. This ranking list has been customized to feature only select websites.

Back

Rank Website Market Share
1. www.huffingtonpost.com 5.24%
2. www.freerepublic.com 4.95%
3. www.dailykos.com 2.97%
4. www.political.moveon.org 2.46%
5. politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com 2.26%
6. www.democraticunderground.com 2.07%
7. www.antiwar.com 2.03%
8. www.townhall.com 2.02%
9. www.buzzflash.com 1.95%
10. www.whatreallyhappened.com 1.92%

From http://www.chroniclejournal.com/stories.php?id=63541, the Chronicle Journal in Thunder Bay Ontario:

Zwicker offers theories on Sept. 11 tragedy
By WARD HOLLAND
Saturday, September 8, 2007

Barrie Zwicker was certainly the centre of attention on Friday night.
Thunder Bay residents packed a lecture hall at Lakehead University‘s Advanced Technology & Academic Centre to listen to the 9/11 theorist and author.
Zwicker told the audience he believed that the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were orchestrated by the George W. Bush administration.
“Nine-eleven was an inside job, planned and executed at the level of the White House,” he told the audience Friday.
After listening to Zwicker speak and give a Power Point presentation for more than an hour, members of the audience asked him several questions. ...

I weighed in yesterday and today on a post on Dissident Voice, "9/11 — Conspiracy or Blowback?" by Rosemarie Jackowski / September 8th, 2007. Jackowski attributes everything to "blowback". I posted a response yesterday:

Mike Zimmer said on September 9th, 2007 at 10:40 pm #

This is not an particularly insightful analysis. Although I respect Blum and know about the blowback thesis, 9/11 was far from a case of simple blowback. Start here, and inform yourselves:

http://ae911truth.org/
http://www.911review.com/
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html

Blowback advocate rosemarie jackowski took my comments as hostility, and replied:

rosemarie jackowski said on September 10th, 2007 at 10:04 am #

I am interested in knowing which sites are acting a gatekeepers on 9/11 Truth. I just finished reading an article and comments on Buzzflash: "An Appeal to 9/11 Conspiracy Buffs" from Thu, 02/22/2007 - A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION by Peter Michaelson. It was a pretty lame hit piece. The bulk of the comments were from sensible people familiar with the issues. One apparent troll continually brought in absurd arguments.

I went look for article to 9/11 Truth on Buzzflash, to see if they had ever published anything. The may have published some favorable articles, but this piece by Peter Michaelson took the cake for garbage.

So, are there any authors out there who are aware of sites that refuse all pro-9/11 Truth pieces? I know about Counterpunch. Some seem to allow 9/11 Truth comments, but no articles. GNN has links to a site that attempts to debunk 9/11 research, and a site that supports it. That is odd. Perhaps someone's idea of being fair and balanced?

What have you observed? I am most concerned with sites that are influential, that have a large readership. I have the germ of an idea that this information may be useful to us.

Regards
Mike Zimmer

I subscribe to a few sites that routinely ask for money. Others post the appeals on their sites. I can't help fund them all, and have decided to help only those supportive of 9/11 Truth, which is not very many of the general progressive and anti-war sites. Others have suggested reasons for this denial, and I won't repeat the material.

Today, I sent the following reply (below) to a site owner. I don't know if this will be effective, or counter productive, but obviously I hope that it will be the former.

The text of the letter is here:

You ask for money. I am not interested in supporting any group in serious 9/11 denial. I get too many appeals for assistance from sites such as your own, excellent sites, but limited in the range of discourse they will tolerate.

Do you do any coverage of the 9/11 Truth movement, that is supportive of the core areas of agreement amongst 9/11 Truth advocates? If so, do you have a few links to article in your site?

Although I generally like your articles, and sometimes link to them from my blog, I am only supporting financially those blogs that are part of the mainstream 9/11 Truth movement. Yes, there is a mainstream activist body of opinion on the issues - not unanimity, but general agreement.

I have met some of the more significant activists in the movement, and I don't consider them to be either mentally unstable, nor lacking in intellectual rigor. I realize that you have not made this claim, but many other "progressives" have. I also believe these activists to be generally correct, although undoubtedly wrong in some of the details. All of of are wrong in the details on almost all significant issues, much of the time.

The scientific evidence that towers one and two were exploded into dust using very high temperature explosives is overwhelming. The evidence that tower seven was brought down by controlled demolition is equally compelling. See for instance:

* Architects and Engineers for 9 11 Truth http://ae911truth.org/ : ... Architects & Engineers who have joined AE911Truth.org in calling upon Congress for a new truly independent investigation into the "collapses" of the WTC Twin Towers and Building 7 - requesting a specific examination for controlled demolition with explosives. ... Take a stand for Truth and join us!

There are almost certainly government agents of disinformation as well. They create dissension, sow distrust, and attempt at all times to make the movement look silly. This is true of any movement opposing a government, as I am sure that you know from your readings.

So, if you have in the past run good and supportive articles on 9/11 Truth, then I will probably ship you a few bucks. There are so many appeals, and so many generally worthy sites, that I can only assist a small percentage.

Regards
Michael Zimmer
http://www.TheProgressiveMind.info