The Huffington Post bans 9/11 Truthers, and equates them with birthers (as if they are similar lunatics). Additionally, for an article or blog to be published with 9/11 Truth references, it must be derisive in tone. Realism: “the birther movement includes . . . members of Congress” (none of whom has been run out of town), “while connection to the truther movement can help cost [an] . . . obscure administration official his job.” Moreover, when it comes to the Huffington Post, even commenting along those lines (as a mere reader with a profile) will get you banned:
“More full disclosure: I despise 9/11 ‘truther’ conspiracies. Indeed, one of the guidelines for bloggers on HuffPost is a ban on posts putting forth those kinds of theories. The 9/11 ‘Truthers’ are fringe-dwellers. . . .”
Thus, clearly, “truthers” (who have volumes of credible information) are relegated to the same level as “birthers” (who have no logical or remotely upstanding basis). Indeed, from Arianna Huffington herself, there is a “ban” on “those kinds of theories” – since they are “[despicable].” It is then assumed that (the late Aaron Russo,) Rosie O’ Donnell, Martin and Charlie Sheen, David Lynch, Ed Begley, Jr., Janeane Garofalo, Ed Asner, Harry and Gina Belafonte, Woody Harrelson, James Cromwell, Peter Coyote, James Brolin, Richard Linklater, and Rory O’Connor (to name a few) would be considered “fringe-dwellers” – thus, not welcomed to blog or comment in relation to their theories on 9/11, or support of the truther movement (in some specific areas). (Jesse Ventura: Confirmed.) (Along other lines of stature, what about the celebrated, brave, whistleblowing, former FBI agent Coleen Rowley? Are her relative views and stands prejudged as irrelevant, zany antics?) Further, beyond not being welcomed to posit, would it also be rational to assume that, as far as Arianna Huffington and her staff is concerned, Janeane Garofalo, for example, is just another lunatic? If so, my previous suggestion of a written debate between Bob Cesca and David Ray Griffin (as a means of clarity) will most likely never even receive consideration. That’s sad, in various aspects – one being “9/11 Truthers mainly base their cases of question, and desire for an independent investigation, on scientific and documented evidence”; “birthers” base theirs on none. (All of the latter, excluding updates, was, of course, Rejected as a reply.) Another aspect is one where, since Cesca is so vocal in equating birthers and truthers together as “wackaloons,” shouldn’t he relish the opportunity of a supposedly easy task of mopping the floor with Griffin – over facts? Yes, and if he ever went into the written or in-person debate, mopping would definitely take place, unexpectedly – because, obviously unbeknownst to Cesca, Griffin is a world away from the likes of Orly Taitz.
Van Jones Resigns, Backpedals, and Disavows
“QUESTION: . . . he was on an organizing committee for a 9/11 Truther march. Your administration has been very active in knocking down the so-called Birthers, . . . who allege without any evidence, and despite all evidence to the contrary, that the president was not born in the United States. How can the administration tolerate somebody who subscribes to a different insane conspiracy theory, as a senior adviser?” To again clarify significant extremes: Centered 9/11 Truthers are all about “evidence to the contrary” – but, of the official version – where overwhelming facts in many areas/facets beg for more light. Most of the 9/11 Commission, for instance, completely ignored (WTC 7, eyewitness accounts, etc.) or purposely obscured considerable “evidence to the contrary” of their predetermined results/goals. As far as conspiracy theories, a passage from Debunking 9/11 Debunking: “Assuming that one of the two conspiracy theories about 9/11 is irrational, because it is contradicted by the facts, is it the official theory or the alternative theory?” In direct relation, and as a result of these ongoing public floggings of Truthers, a “30-percent open[-minded]” visit to the web sites of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Scholars for Truth is recommended for substance – after, or in combination with, a reading of The New Pearl Harbor. Further, for those of the Spirit who “fight the good fight” in ultimately Just causes, a quote from David Ray Griffin’s Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action: “If 9/11 is not a religious issue, then I don’t know what is.”
Questions, History, and Stances:
“Inactivity” – Before 9/11
Paul Begala’s article, “Mr. Cheney, You Did Not Keep Us Safe” ended with a time-line of “inactivity” – Before 9/11. Response: “Combined with all the ‘coincidental’ inactivity and seeming indifference, which just happened to benefit the hijackers’ goals (such as the FBI’s quashing of reports from Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago, and New York, and John O’Neill’s resignation from the FBI over what he considered ‘repeated obstruction of his investigations into al-Qaeda,’ etc.), there was also significant ‘activity’ – behind closed doors. Qwest Communications (e.g.) was served with National Security Letters (as were other tele-coms), before 9/11, in relation to a (secret and illegal) Warrantless Surveillance program. Many could wonder: with all the supposed apathy going on previous to the planes striking their targets, what was the ‘ticking time-bomb‘ scenario which led them to covertly bypass FISA – well before they ever hit?”
WTC (“Pull It”) 7
Exoteric: Without having been hit by a plane, WTC 7 was the third steel-frame building (on the same day) in history to “collapse,” totally (including core columns), from fire damage – in a free-fall. Senator John Kerry’s version (as if it was completely devoid of nefarious implications): “I do know that . . . wall, I remember, was in danger – and I think that they made a decision based on the danger that it had of destroying other things, that they did it in a Controlled Fashion.” (Question: How believable is it that WTC 7 was planned and rigged for demolition in under, say, five hours?) So, which proposed Theories are credible? Esteemed “alternative” researchers, impartial scientists and engineers – or officials – purposely looking in, and for, other ways? As far as evidence, another passage from Debunking 9/11 Debunking: “As Steven Jones has written: ‘The likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 due to random fires . . . – requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns – is infinitesimal.” Yet, NIST’s “Thermal Expansion” as a simple scientific wonder was an “official” explanation. What about Senator (“Controlled Fashion”) Kerry? Overruled by NIST. Still, if he was (bluntly) correct, and the reception by unbiased peers on “Thermal Expansion” has been pure, confirming mockery – what would the cover for the revelation of Demolition be? Unsurprisingly, they might come up with a statement like: “Well, NIST did what they were directed to do. But, now that this has come out (where, undeniably, we could not have set WTC 7 up – while it was burning), our currently released position is one where we have been secretly rigging buildings all over the U.S. – ahead of time – just in case it’s needed – for many years.” In turn, public recognition: “How ‘insane[ly]’ convenient!” Retort: “Classified scenarios of such a volatile level were (and to the greatest extent, remain) far beyond your ‘need to know’ status.”
Shoot, or Stand Down?
Norman Mineta: “There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’“ In context of the overall situation – and a localized outcome (the Pentagon was hit), what determination is more rational – an order was given to Shoot Down, or Stand Down?
A Moderate’s View on The Truth of 9/11
“Surveillance/inside information led to Knowing It Was Coming. Based on the latter, covert actions were implemented that would Enhance the Outcome. Then, Standing Down (just long enough) during the occurrence assured an expectation of success.”
Finally, though this blog post could go on (for at least) another twelve pages just focusing on self-evident information, the following statements are a (momentary) conclusion. As an avid reader of the Huffington Post since its inception, it has been intensely disillusioning to discover such absolute ludicrousness by way of shamefully distorted associations and uninformed positions. Howard Zinn, historian, author, and playwright, on “The New Pearl Harbor” : ‘[T]he most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration’s relationship to that historic and troubling event.’ By contrast, his likely take on the birthers: “The most unsustainable, unconvincing, and unsupported-by-facts pile of Beckish rubbish ever brought forth in relation to the Obama administration.” In spite of blanketing assertions attempting to label Truthers and birthers into the same box of “insanity,” they are not similar – to an extreme. One side is completely blinded (and manipulated like clueless sheep) – thus, irrespective of facts and shaded political realities. The other is analytically grounded, critically aware of political possibilities, and pushing forward with ultimate Reason.
Update: A surprising admission: “Some, but not all, of the left thought Bush had prior knowledge of the September 11th attacks. It’s a matter of record that he knew an attack might be imminent based upon the famous PDB titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’ So that one was partially true.” Undoubtedly, Bob Cesca knows what doors are then opened – by invitation. However, if one should step up and try to go (rationally) within, he or she would be ridiculed as just another “wackaloon.” Is that objectively reasonable, or “partially” acceptable? Neither. Once an area of truth so astounding (and implicative) is revealed, the naturally following exploration of related questions ought to be welcomed – without denigration.
Update II: Obama Confidant’s Spine-Chilling Proposal: “In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories“ about the Government.” (Sunstein and Beck Fire Shots Across Our Bow)
Update III: Mike Green was allowed to publish an article with 9/11 Truth references on the Huffington Post (03/07/2009)? Unannounced changes? Progress? No. (Exploring the angle.)
Update IV: In his CommonDreams.org article (04/19/2010), “NPR & Trust in Government,” Robert Shetterly referenced WTC 7 and the totally rational suspicions/questions relating. Hopefully, more people like him will continue to speak out, while braving the mainstream (institutionalized) ridicule.
Robert Shetterly’s Reply: “I’ve decided to begin taking on the 9/11 story though my portrait project AmericansWhoTelltheTruth .
I’ll paint a portrait of David Ray Griffin in May.”
Update V: Once again applauding CommonDreams.org as an example to the Huffington Post for their reprinting of an article by John Kirby, Let’s Rejoice in Terror’s Benefits!, which cited the WTC 7 scenario.
Update VI: Another example from the Huffington Post (09/11/2010):
There are many ways that the “Media Embarrass Themselves.” One in particular is through journalist reporting which purports to expose the “idio[cy]” of situations and others – while at the same time failing to recognize its own ignorance: Regarding the ridiculous “day of Quran burning” story, and a thoroughly misguided pastor, Jason Linkins ridiculed the Media’s most significant part in the charade. However, he did not do so without belittling, and equating, another group with the instigator. Before one could even get to “this cult leader lied,” there was a “lone” derogatory reference (by implicative association) to ‘truther’ “signs.” That was sad and offensive (in an ongoing fashion) – but not at all surprising.
The referred to “leader of [this] microscopic cult” deserved to be called out, early (as written). And, the situation obviously reflected an individual and a Press who were lost in various modes. Yet, though there are almost always “microscopic” elements of fringe movements / organizations which serve to destroy the credibility of a main focus (some consciously, such as saboteurs), this method of expounding a few “lone idiots” should not be implemented as a means of mirroring the whole. If particular groups, especially those with some legitimate standing, are to be openly debased in this type of one-sided mode, what does it say about the demagogues – when the targets are not only scarlet-lettered, but also denied their voices in defense?