Liberal Talk Radio - Sirius.com

Is 9/11 Paranoia Bad For The Country?
Tomorrow 5:00 pm ET
The Nation contributer Christopher Hayes will talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories-- and the trouble such paranoia causes to legitimate skepticism of the government and its behavior (especially this particular administration).

You can find 'Sirius Left' on channel 146 on Sirius radio. The exact date of the show isn't stated, so keep an eye out today and tomorrow.

Thanks Kleetus for the heads up!

News and Commentary by David Caputo of Positronic Design.

In reference to my first post's mixed-message comment on CounterPunch and 9/11, I thought I'd include the letters I wrote to them on that subject.

After reading this article by Alex Cockburn,

I wrote the following reply:

Dear Counterpunch and Alex Cockburn,

As a long-time fan and paying subscriber to Counterpunch, I am dismayed by the ad-hominem attack on myself and my friends as "nuts" because we are deeply suspicious of the Bush administration's claims as to the events on 9/11/01.

His hyperbolic piece would almost be amusing in its shrillness if it weren't covering such a serious topic.

His refutation arguments are very weak, and he tars with guilt by association with unrelated conspiracy controversies anyone who suspects that the "official" 9/11 story is a bunch of baloney.

His statement: "One characteristic of the nuts is that they have a devout, albeit preposterous belief in American efficiency, thus many of them start with the racist premise that “Arabs in caves” weren’t capable of the mission." completely misses the point and uses the vague "many" to call most of us "racist" because we believe that the 19 names "found" in "Mohammad Atta's" car in the Portland, ME airport are (by the ever-reliable FBI) nothing approaching a definitive list of the operatives involved.

News and Commentary by David Caputo of Positronic Design

------
THIS JUST IN - The Chimp has deleted my account and this article. So much for freedom of the press, eh?
------

Here I was, all excited.

I had just cross-posted my first "real" article, American Thinker says 9/11 skepticism "extremely dangerous" on SmirkingChimp.com and saw it get lots of views (700+) and good votes and positive comments and spend some time in the "most emailed" list and then suddenly... comments and votes were suddenly shut down. (Before I could get the ten votes required to be on the "most recommended" list.)

My commentary was in reaction to an article in American Thinker that essentially suggested that 9/11 skeptics were a dangerous and potentially treasonous lot, sapping the martial spirit of our nation's youth with theories of sinister government activities.

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

Dear Nation Editors,

I wrote:
Dear Noam,

Recently I stumbled upon a transcript of something
you'd written on a Znet forum and I thought I'd ask
for clarification. You wrote:

"The concept of a 'false flag operation' is not a very
serious one, in my opinion."

I wonder why you would sa that. For instance, are you
suggesting that the Gleiwitz incident didn't happen or
that it wasn't important?

I should divulge that I find the evidence for US
complicity in 9/11 compellng. Specifically it seems
to me that the current administration had foreknowlege
of the September 11th attacks and were criminally
negligent at best and may have facilitated the attack.
You were discussing this issue when you claimed that
the very concept of a false flag attack wasn't
serious, but I'm not asking you about that subject
now. I'm just curious about your more general view
that 'false flag opearations' don't happen or aren't
serious.

Noam Chomsky: "...One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis."

Chomsky doesn't believe that 9/11 represents "real and ongoing crimes of state." However, he never bothers to describe even one "real and ongoing crimes of state" in this exchange.

Chomsky Dismisses 911 Conspiracy Theories As 'Dubious'
12-13-6

http://www.rense.com/general74/dismiss.htm

http://blog.zmag.org/node/2779

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice's James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission's report in accuracy and lucidity (see,

Here's what I don't understand. It's bad enough that they are clearly not advocates of 9/11 Truth... but why do gatekeeper on the left feel the need to attack the 9/11 Truth Movement? Why not just shut-up about it? What do they possibly hope to gain by going after us? Especially considering that we ARE RIGHT... and they are soooo very WRONG.

Christopher Hayes has penned the latest worthless hit-piece on the 9/11 Truth Movement. For some reason, The Nation has chosen to actually publish it. The article, entitled "9/11: The Roots of Paranoia" is poorly written. It is poorly researched. It is highly opinionated. It is logically inconsistent. In a word... it is WEAK. Why the Nation continues to tempt fate by lending credibility to these "conspiracy deniers" is beyond me.

Mr. Hayes even acknowledges that "one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen." I have no doubt that the number is much larger, but let's just say it's only one-third. Clearly the majority of this group are going to be "progressive" thinkers. These are the people most likely to actually read "the Nation". Why risk alienating up to a 1/3 or more of your core readers? It just doesn't make any sense! I for one feel thoroughly alienated by the Nation. Quite frankly they sicken me.

Into the Ring with Counterpunch on 9/11: How Alexander Cockburn, Otherwise So Bright, Blanks Out on 9/11 Evidence

by Michael Keefer - 11-17-2006

The first thing to say by way of preliminaries—and I’d better get it in quickly before someone suggests that I’ve turned up late or over-weight for a pre-match weighing-in—is that I’m not overjoyed with the pugilistic metaphor of my title.

But some sort of response to the volley of attacks on 9/11 researchers and activists with which the Counterpunch website marked the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 seems called for.

Counterpunch co-editor Alexander Cockburn set the tone of these pieces with an article describing theologian and ethicist David Ray Griffin, the author of The New Pearl Harbor (2004) and of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), as a “high priest” of the “conspiracy nuts”—whom Cockburn denounces as cultists who “disdain all answers but their own,” who “seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant,” and who “pounce on imagined clues in documents and photos, [….] contemptuously brush[ing] aside” evidence that contradicts their own “whimsical” treatment of “eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence.”

It’s a characteristically forceful performance, if at times slipshod. (One small sign of carelessness may be the manner in which Cockburn slides from calling 9/11 skeptics a “coven” to comparing them, a few sentences later, to “mad Inquisitors […] torturing the data—as the old joke goes about economists—until the data confess.” Readers brought up to think that the victims and perpetrators of witch-crazes have not customarily been the same people may find this unintentionally amusing.)

Continued...
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/IntoTheRingWithCounterpunchOn911ByMichaelKeefer.htm

Link found at: DemocraticUnderground.com

I find it amazingly ironic that truthout.org has a feature video on Project Censored's recent Media Accountability Conference, where the keynote speaker was Stephen E. Jones, co-founder of 911 Scholars for Truth.

Here's truthout SELECTIVELY airing a segment by Jason Leopold, which while important, is dwarfed by the biggest story of the century: 9/11 which truthout continues to ignore and effectively CENSOR from its coverage. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111506U.shtml

This has been an ongoing beef of mine about the alternative and progressive media organizations, blogs, and publications like truthout, BuzzFlash, Common Dreams, DailyKos, AmericaBlog, The Nation, Salon, Alternet, and on and on. I know Barrie Zwicker has written extensively about this phenomena in his latest book "Towers of Deception."

When will these presumably intelligent progressives wake up and smell the thermate?

I urge everyone to drop a truth bomb on this guy's left-gatekeerping ponkass, here's his mail: chomsky@mit.edu

____

Dear Noam Chomsky,

You proclaim that to challenge the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK as being anything other than as officially described would be the "Death of the Left". No, sir people you are becoming the "Death of the Left", because you and the other foundation funded "Leaders" have been politically castrating the political Left. And all with the anaesthetic of half-truths and micro revelations that steam valve just how corrupt things are. So the “Death of the Left” will be the slow political impotency that no longer inspires new generations to challenge the things that need challenging the most, “politically correct” or not. Above all though your constant dismissal of the 9/11 issue is frankly vomit inducing. There are credible, valid and rational reasons to doubt the official narrative describing that attack, yet you plead ignorance and show distain for such a critical subject, why? Beucase of this enigmatic stance of yours I actually now sympathise with those who would call you a gutless, visionless charlatan and coward.

Left Denial on 9/11 Turns Irrational
by Jack Straw

People like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill are turning toward the irrational as they continue to deny increasing signs that 9/11 was an inside job.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STR505A.html

Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America's premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.

He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.

However, as one begins to examine the interviews and writings of Chomsky, a different picture emerges. His books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles, appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists. Since the 1960's, Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite.
http://www.rense.com/general67/noam.htm

Where Noam will not roam:

9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory

I was just over at BuzzFlash.net (the site where readers leave comments and "buzz" various articles from around the world) to see if there might be any 9/11 truth articles. I found one from Scholars for 9/11 Truth -- I believe it's the article by Stephen Jones (my Acrobat just crashed, so can't check right now) but the point is that whoever controls BuzzFlash.net put a "Warning! This story may be inaccurate. Be careful before you buzz" right above it. WTF? Two of us have left comments taking issue with that -- we need more 9/11 Bloggers to come in and buzz the story and leave comments.

http://buzzflash.net/story.php?id=924

After watching these interviews:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3789

I realized, damn!..we really have our shit together. The people that call themselves 'leftists' have no idea concerning the facts of 9/11 and the obvious cover-up.

I've never felt more prepared to steam roller over an ideological adversary then after watching these interviews.

All I can say is everyone is doing a fabulous job and even if it takes 10 more years I will always be pushing 9/11 Truth.

Can't stop 9/11 Fever for sure.

This all started when I found out that Amy Goodman was having a book release party in NY City at Cooper Hall on 9/11. This was the same Cooper Hall that was hosting the 911 Truth Break Out on 9/10! This was also the same Amy Goodman of Democracy Now who had blatantly ignored 911 Truth for over five years, except for one interview with David Ray Griffin in 2003. An interview in which her suprise guest Chip Bartlet, openly attacked Dr. Griffin's personal credibility while avoiding the deeper questions about 911 that Dr. Griffin eloquently and clearly presented. In addition, Amy's co-host, Juan Gonzales had been one of the first and most out spoken reporters to investigate the horrible health effects and lies about the toxic dust from ground zero, yet he too had remained silent on the larger facts and questions presented by the 911 Truth movement.

These were the classic left gate keepers that Barrie Zwicker writes about in his new book "Towers of Deception". I wanted to know why they avoided 911 Truth and what the other 'progressive' volunteers and attendants at the event thought about 911 Truth and Democracy Now's handling or non-handling of the subject. I was determined to go and ask these questions.