The debate of whether the 9/11 truth movement should consider what we call the "Left Gatekeepers" (like typically Noam Chomsky or Amy Goodman) as enemies or should simply ignore them is coming to an end. These folk will soon be considered as victims and moreover, they will like to be called that way. The book of Naomi Klein "The Shock Doctrine" will be a tool for such a move.

What is the main thesis of the "Shock Doctrine" ? That the US neoliberals and imperialists are using perceived shocks as tools to erase and rebuild societies on grounds favorable to private interests, mainly theirs. This is the definition of fascism/corporatism. This thesis is becoming very popular. Why ? Because it provides an excuse for the left (which nowadays should be understood as the antifascists ;-) for having been impotent in preventing the rise of fascist America. They were under "Shock" after 9/11, like everybody else (the Cheney gang being strangely immune to the 9/11 shock). And that is what NK tells you in her book: the Bush administration has used the shock of 9/11 (and other event) to implement radical changes in the American society (and elsewhere), not only in US foreign policy.

As Robert Fisk did two weeks ago, Justin Raimondo, the leader of Antiwar.com is now expressing doubts about the official theory on Al Qaeda and 9/11 :

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11584

"Al-Qaeda and the War Party: one could not succeed without the other.There is no conclusive evidence that this odd symbiosis is more than just ideological. Yet I wouldn't be surprised if it extended to the operational. The mysteries of al-Qaeda are intertwined with the unsolved mysteries of 9/11: how did 19 young men evade detection for years and pull off one of the boldest, most destructive terrorist acts in modern history? Or were they detected, and allowed to go through with their task?"

This is clearly LIHOP. J. Raimondo has never been a gatekeeper as for example N. Chomsky. To my knowledge, he has never attacked the 9/11 truth movement. But he never took side either. This is a very good sign that the truth movement is gaining momentum in the antiwar crowd. Encouraging, isn't it ?

Counterpunch is currently discussing a lot about conspiracy theories. Consider the following article "The American mind: When Historical Analysis is Reduced to Whim" by Hani Shukrallah. He develops three classical and purely semantic arguments to refute what he considers the most credible conspiracy theory he encountered to date. I suppose he discusses the arguments developped by the "Scholars for 9/11 truth". I propose the following refutations of these classic counter-arguments. Can you give me some feedback or impressions please ?

The first may be discounted as sheer pigheadedness. As soon as I learned of the attack on the World Trade Center twin towers, my first guess, accompanied by intense dread (I could already see the war of civilizations being launched), was that it was Bin Laden and Co. who'd done it. [...] Later developments, needless to say, seemed to amply confirm my initial guess. Your first argument is based on reminds of a post-traumatic stress.

In the wake of 9/11, you did accept as the truth the first "plausible" explanation of what might have caused this horrible event. Due to the strength of this initial stress, removing this based on faith explanation from your head is very hard, even with rational arguments such that: the official account cannot be true because such and such points are either self contradictory or contradictory with physics or beyond common sense. And indeed, you agree that this first argument is discountable as irrational, even tough you put it as a first item, which in itself reveals that this "faith based" argument is very important to you. You may conceal there is a fight between your guts and your head here.