It's the commies, stupid

A chorus of leftwing voices is rising up to heap scorn on 9/11 conspiracy theorists. This sudden surge of leftist vocalization seems to be in direct proportion to the success of the 9/11 truth movement in convincing at least one in three Americans that treason occurred on that fateful day.
Just look at the post below. Clearly, to dump on critics of the official conspiracy theory requires a malicious blindness. These people are marching to a secret drummer, and that drummer is most likely the communist conspiracy. Notice that no matter how much the reds crack down in China, the Bush bunch maketh much sound and fury which signifieth nothing.
Perhaps 9/11 wasn't only a communist power grab. But the party certainly felt that it had much to gain by backing that maneuver.

Engineering professors suspect controlled demolition of WTC7

Two former structural engineering professors suspect that World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, according to a University of Zurich historian.

The two experts in structural design and construction who taught at Zurich's Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) are very skeptical of the official position, wrote historian Daniele Ganser in the Tagesanzeiger newspaper.

"In my opinion, the WTC7 building was very probably professionally demolished," Hugo Bachman is quoted as saying. The other professor, Jorg Schneider, sees the paucity of videographic evidence in the WTC7 collapse as a strong indicator of controlled demolition, Ganser writes.

See http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html

She also quotes an American investigator, Frederick Mower, as being alarmed at the "frightening" speed with which the physical steel evidence from the trade center was recycled before it could be examined. Mower is a fire protection engineer at the University of Maryland.

Ganser also notes 9/11 skeptic David Ray Griffin's comment that the Kean commission omitted mention of WTC7's collapse -- as if it were disconnected from the 9/11 attacks.

For a synopsis of the Kean commission omissions, see http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/report.html

Curiously, Bush's close relatives were in charge of WTC security.

In the meantime, Brigham Young University has instituted an inquiry into physics professor Steven Jones' charges that the trade center towers were brought down by concealed explosives. School officials say they are concerned that Jones' internet paper has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. They did not address the issue that the current political climate may make it very difficult to publish such material in professional journals.

Jones remains on paid suspension.

Few scientists back official 9/11 line

Few scientists are willing to vouch for the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Well, sure, there are a few Benedict Arnolds on the government payroll, either directly or via defense contractor, who will use their credentials to deceive.

But, there is no chorus of independent experts championing the government's conjectures (which are sold to the public as "fact" even though the reports themselves are careful to note that the official scenarios are really guesses). After all, how can credible experts assess the official theories? All that can be said is "insufficient data" because a pile of evidence that would affirm or debunk government claims is still under lock and key, despite numerous FOIA efforts.
No serious scientist is going to back a government scenario knowing that critical data is being withheld.

On the other hand, there is a growing group of professors who do have competence to sift evidence who are unconvinced by the government's official theories.

Who is willing to back up the official stories? Popular Mechanics, a little Hearst organization mag that keeps track of the latest technical widgets, is about the best the government can do. Then there was a columnist for Scientific American who challenged those who don't believe the government (Shermer is a Skeptic, but not of the government). Yet, I recall seeing no piece by a scientist writing for that popular magazine affirming the government theories.

In fact, there hasn't exactly been a glut of articles in technical or scientific journals affirming government theories, and not many scientists speaking out publicly in favor of government scenarios. Those who do are usually psychologists who tend to think that conspiracies are mostly paranoid fantasies. (I guess they think "it can't happen here," which is what Jews in Hitler's prewar Germany thought.)

On the other hand, the professional organizations that should be speaking out against the government are hunkered down and grotesquely silent.

Today I heard a snip of a radio discussion between the producers of "Loose Change," which focuses on apparent inconsistencies in the government line and Popular Mechanics journalists who said that all the "myths" have non-conspiracy explanations. The most important point is that Popular Mechanics seemed eager to deflate balloons rather than do an honest story that, while perhaps puncturing myths, also takes note of discrepancies and inconsistencies.

I haven't read the Popular Mechanics debunker book, but I read the magazine article, and all I can say is that it was a typical bit of Hearst sleight-of-hand of the type the Hearst press used in the JFK assassination coverup.

About the WMD truth movement

WMD truth movement? Oh that's passe, you say.
Yes, and let's hope that the 9/11 truth movement will become passe soon.

Right now, only independent investigators are convinced of treason on 9/11 and after-the-fact cover-up. Reporters generally treat doubters of the official 9/11 line as if they are somehow disconnected from the media -- where it seems that no independent investigative reporting is allowed.

However, that was pretty much the case in the run-up to the Iraq war, with WMD doubters treated as though they were just an eccentric fringe. The media in general didn't dare to focus on the problems with what the administration was claiming. As FAIR points out, people on the New York Times were shilling for the WMD enthusiasts [though doubters like Paul Krugman were given a voice and then there was that Joe Wilson op-ed bombshell] before Times brass-hats were forced to "get religion" and "see the light" on WMD fraud.

About a week ago, the Daily Mirror, a tabloid that tends to back the British Labor Party's rank and file, splashed a story about U.S. professors who are convinced of treason on 9/11. The writer did not treat them as an odd assortment of academic cranks but rather cast them in a respectful light. And recently, Britain's Guardian, which has snubbed 9/11 conspiracy theorists, published a piece by a member of parliament condemning 9/11 as an inside job by forces within the U.S. government.

Also, from time to time, I have seen attempts in the U.S. press to treat seriously the potential treason issue raised by critics, and it is clear that the journalists have their doubts also.
The problem is that these concerns are not followed up at the news management level.

Well, cheers! The WMD truth movement is our example.

The conspiracy to silence 9/11-doubting profs

Ok. So this is a bit late. On Aug 29, New Hampshire's Union Leader held up a University of New Hampshire professor to a public lashing for daring to disbelieve the official line on 9/11 and being convinced that the evidence points to treason.

The weasely university defended Dr. William Woodward's free speech rights with the preface that the school may not agree with his views. We know that. The only reason for that preface is fear. Why not simply affirm the psychology prof's rights and leave it at that?

The Union Leader canvassed politicos who expressed anger that someone might think treason could have occurred, with one fuming that there are limits to freedom of speech. (And this from the state with the slogan: Live free or die.)

What should traitors do when confronted by an increasing number of academics with good credentials who challenge the official fairy tale? Answer: Rope them off -- in particular from their frightened peers -- and bash their reputations. Hopefully, one by one, the traitors, aided by dupes or worse in the media, can keep a significant body of reputable opinion from forming that points to treason.

Not from New York...

Some say that they can't believe 9/11 was an inside job because too many people would have to have been involved. Don't believe in big conspiracies in government? You apparently are not from New York.

Anyway, here's how big conspiracies work: the foot soldiers know a little something, but not much. The top plotters keep information compartmentalized.

If you don't believe in big conspiracies, I'd like to ask you how communism took over half the planet prior to the Soviet Union's collapse.