A Limit To Doubts About 9/11?

Comment by Larry Ross, June 5, 2006

Why should any objective thinker try to set limits on other people's analysis of  the Questions about the 9/11 attack? Yet William Arkin and Joshua Holland have done just that, as the following article shows. It is quite obvious that Holland's research is very superficial. His article is dismissive of very careful analysis by experts, as well as eye-witness testimony, that the Twin /Towers were brought down by internal demolition charges and not by Airliner impact at the top of the two buildings. Interestingly, Holland does not mention the third World Trade Building brought down. There was no impact by any aircraft.  Logically, it must have been internal demolition. Or is that conclusion not allowed by Arkin and Holland, who avoided the issue. This site has a number of articles that support alternative analysis of the 9/11 attacks that points to a conspiracy of widespread government involvement and cover-up. Given the horrendous implications, I can understand why some usually objective commentators, would not allow themselves to draw the obvious conclusions. It is a very big pill...too big a pill... to swallow...that a criminal conspiracy controls the world's most powerful nation and could initiate a nuclear war anytime. In fact that may happen in any case, if the plans of the Bush Administration are implemented. Holland even makes a desperate attempt to end investigation and debate of the issue by writing "..there will be no further serious investigation into the events of 9/11" Really? Has the almighty spoken?

The implications of such conclusions are profound and pose a severe threat to the American political system. If too much is revealed about Bush Administration involvement in the 9/11 attack, another war, such as the planned war on Iran may be used to distract public attention and facilitate draconian fascist-type laws to stifle dissent and prevent debate. Even an arranged nuclear world war III is a possibility. There are plans for a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran, as indicated in Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article.   Anyone can check out the facts and expert analysis and draw their own conclusions. I don't really think we need a William Arkin or Joshua Holland to tell us what to think and how far we are allowed to go with logical conclusions from all the evidence.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

9/11: Wild Conspiracies and Rational Concerns

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet, June 5, 2006

 

According to a recent Zogby poll , less than half of all Americans agree that "the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about U.S. government involvement is nonsense."

You could almost hear a wail of frustration rising up from the gatekeepers of acceptable discourse.

Just after the Zogby poll was released, William Arkin, the Washington Post's normally circumspect military affairs columnist, had a fit of apoplexy over some e-mail from 9/11 skeptics. "National security is men's work," he wrote -- absurdly bringing gender politics into a debate that's already quite muddled -- and conspiracy theorists are, presumably, not real men, but "predatory and devious, seekers of polarization and not light, abusive of the political system [and] contemptuous of anything that even resembles the 'truth.'"

One wonders what he really thinks.

Outside of the world of punditry, the 9/11 conspiracies should come as no surprise, especially when you consider how ripe the events of 9/11 are for "alternative" analysis.

That begins with the basic premise that underlies the most common conspiracy theories. I, for one, have no problem accepting the notion that a small group of true believers -- people like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the neocon "cabal" -- used the attacks of 9/11 to seize and consolidate power. And I'm comfortable accepting that they view liberal democracy as a threat, their political opponents as a national weakness, and American militarism as the best hope for humanity.

Continue