William Blum Supports Basic Premises Of 9/11 Truth
The Truthers have long been pressing me to express my support for their cause. Here’s how I stand on the issue. I’m very aware of the serious contradictions and apparent lies in the Official Government Version (OGV) of what happened on that fateful day. (Before the Truthers can be dismissed as “conspiracy theorists”, it should be noted that the OGV is literally a “conspiracy theory” about the fantastic things that a certain 19 men conspired to do.) It does appear that the buildings in New York collapsed essentially because of a controlled demolition, which employed explosives as well as certain incendiary substances found in the rubble. So, for this and many other questions raised by the 9/11 Truth Movement, the OGV can clearly not be taken entirely at face value but has to be seriously examined point by point. But no matter what the discrepancies in the OGV, does it necessarily follow that the events of 9/11 were an “inside job”? Is it an either/or matter? Either a group of terrorists were fully responsible or the government planned it all down to the last detail?
What if the government, with its omnipresent eyes and ears, discovered the plotting of Mideast terrorists some time before and decided to let it happen — and even enhance the destruction — to make use of it as a justification for its “War on Terror”? The Truthers admit that they can’t fully explain what actually took place, but they argue that they are not obliged to do so; that they have exposed the government lies and that the fact of these lies proves that it was an inside job. The Truthers have done great work, but I say that for me, and I’m sure for many others, to accept the idea of an inside job I have to indeed know what actually took place, or at least a lot more than I know now. It is, after all, an incredible story, and I need to know how the government pulled it off. I need to have certain questions answered, amongst which are the following:
1. Were the planes that hit the towers hijacked?
2. Did they contain the passengers named amongst the dead?
3. Were they piloted or were they flying via remote control?
4. If piloted, who were the pilots?
5. Did a plane crash in Pennsylvania? If so, why? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
6. Did a plane crash into the Pentagon? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
7. Why do Truthers say that some, or many, of the named Arabic hijackers have been found alive living abroad? Why couldn’t their identity have been stolen by the hijackers?
If the Truthers can’t answer any or most of the above questions, are they prepared to consider the possibility of 9/11 being a “let-it-happen” government operation?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Recent Stories
Recent Comments
- Gawker: Chief of CIA’s Global Jihad Unit Revealed Online
- "9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip" - A Participant's Perspective
- Identity of CIA Officer Behind 9/11 & Torture Cases Revealed
- "9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip" - A Participant's Perspective
- "9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip" - A Participant's Perspective
- Who Funded 9/11? Families & Insurers Still Want Answers
- Sibel Edmonds Interviews Paul Thompson
Despite my critical comment to his article which I hoped very much to be instructive rather than contentious, I’ve been reminded that the article represents a good deal more support for the movement that we have come to expect from more mainstream political writers.
So I want to also express my appreciate for the bravery Blum has demonstrated here, backing very logical conclusions that are unfortunately far too widely dismissed by intelligent and informed people.
IMO… the terms LIHOP/MIHOP shouldn’t even be posted on this site.
I have mixed feelings about that. Regardless of whether the terms represent a false dichotomy in absolute terms, they do represent the differing views of many people. They have popular currency. We might not like that, but we can’t just ignore it. This story is a perfect example.
Blum was stereotyping movement participants by making that distinction, suggesting that we all support MIHOP. In my comment to his post, which was directed at him and not his audience, I pointed out that LIHOP is a view held by many in the movement and that it’s a more responsible position for outreach. (Well, I meant to say more.) But I also very strongly indicated that it does not lie outside the movement. That if he supports that view that he supports 9/11 truth.
So, sure, the terms are lame. And when they are used by others we should point out that they both represent positions within the movement. But we aren’t going to avoid using the terms when others refer to them.
Julian… I have personally worked very hard to get people to stop using those divisive terms that were created by Nico Haupt.
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21271
“As for LIHOP… Dr. Griffin and I recently had an exchange about this very matter. Here is exactly what I told him…
“As for “letting it happen…” That is an impossibility. Protocols that were in place should have prevented the majority of the attacks. They had to take an active role, whatever that role may have been. I am not ashamed to say that I don’t know what happened on 9/11. I don’t know. I’ve been doing this just as long, if not longer than you, and I don’t know. I have read everything there is to read on 9/11. In some cases 10x over. I don’t know.
9/11 was a crime. What I DO KNOW is that elements within our Government and others have EARNED the title of suspect for the crime of 9/11.”
I also said…
“It’s no different than the false “left/right paradigm.” It is a division among the people in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Or… that is how it is used, and has been for years. Most people who use the terms seem to FORGET that the United States Government uses people from the Middle East through proxies between the ISI, Saudi Arabia, MI5, Mossad, etc… for terrorist purposes. People who may very well be Muslim. People who may very well be Arab. That doesn’t mean you blame the entire religion or race. You blame the individuals. People like Kevin Barrett think LIHOP means you are trying to “keep the focus on the evil Muslims…” or commit a “blood-libel” against an entire race of people. Nothing can be further from the truth. As Donna Marsh O’Connor said at the United Nations on 9/11/2005, “is one Arab the same as all Arabs? How DARE that work in this country.” I don’t know what happened on 9/11, or who was involved. You blame the individuals responsible, not entire religions, races or ideologies. And in my opinion, part of the blame falls on us for allowing the system that brought us the 9/11 in the first place. Through our complacency.”
So Kevin, the terms LIHOP and MIHOP are “irrelevant and extinct” yes, but not because of Controlled Demolition, but because they have outlived their usefulness (if they ever had any), and are divisive.”
Things Not To Come Across As…
by Jon Gold on Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 10:30pm
The “media” and “debunkers” like to portray people who are demanding justice and accountability for the 9/11 attacks in a certain light. Here is what a “9/11 Truther” is according to them.
1) Someone that lives in their mother’s basement.
2) Someone who believes everything they see and hear.
3) Someone who is paranoid.
4) Someone who relies solely on “crazy internet sites” for information.
5) Someone who hates Jews, and believes in EVERY “Conspiracy Theory” known to man.
6) Someone who hates America.
7) Someone who is limited to two arguments concerning the 9/11 attacks. Controlled Demolition, and Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon. It’s easier for them to deal with us if we’re only about one or two issues.
8) Someone who uses weird secret words that only a “9/11 Truther” would know like LIHOP and MIHOP.
9) Someone who dishonors the family members.
10) Someone who is a “terrorist sympathizer.”
11) Someone who murders people.
My advice is to say… do your best not to fit within their “definition” of a person demanding justice and accountability for the 9/11 attacks, and do your best.
Jon,
Of course, I agree with you. Thanks for clarifying the issue for our audience here.
My comment which is still awaiting approval is as follows:
1. Were the planes that hit the towers hijacked?
There is information that suggests it.
2. Did they contain the passengers named amongst the dead?
It certainly seems so.
3. Were they piloted or were they flying via remote control?
Useless speculation.
4. If piloted, who were the pilots?
See #1.
5. Did a plane crash in Pennsylvania? If so, why? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
There are many unanswered questions about Flight 93. It seems a plane did crash, but as a result of a mid air explosion based on the debris field.
6. Did a plane crash into the Pentagon? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
I think so.
7. Why do Truthers say that some, or many, of the named Arabic hijackers have been found alive living abroad? Why couldn’t their identity have been stolen by the hijackers?
I don’t know why some people do that William.
Here is the 9/11 Report. I suggest you read it, and ask others to read it to understand the “official account.”
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
After that, I suggest you ask people to watch “9/11: Press For Truth”…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481#
Then I suggest you ask people to watch the companion DVD “In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families”…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4399917864007973679#
Then I suggest you recommend the “Complete 9/11 Timeline” to get people started…
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Then I suggest you recommend this series of movies I made called “What’s Being Covered Up?”…
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080326132655798
Then I suggest you recommend the report on the inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission’s Report compiled by 9/11 Family Members Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg…
http://911truth.org/downloads/Family_Steering_Cmte_review_of_Report.pdf
Then I suggest you show people this list of unanswered questions compiled by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee…
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Then I suggest you ask people to read the different letters sent out over the years by the September Eleventh Advocates…
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090720125107330
Here is an archive I made a few years ago called the “Who Is? Archives”…
http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=157
Then, if all of that fails to motivate people to fight for justice, you can show them my article, “The Facts Speak For Themselves”…
http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/
Good luck!
>>Despite my critical comment to his article which I hoped very much to be instructive rather than contentious, I’ve been reminded that the article represents a good deal more support for the movement that we have come to expect from more mainstream political writers.
Yes, I had the same automatic response and I think it was because the essay is internally contradictory in a few different ways, and waves the worst claims out in front in the numbered list.
It doesn’t make much sense to agree with demolition, but then say,
“But no matter what the discrepancies in the OGV, does it necessarily follow that the events of 9/11 were an “inside job”? Is it an either/or matter?”
and
“to accept the idea of an inside job I have to indeed know what actually took place, or at least a lot more than I know now.”
How else does military grade nanothermite get thoroughly spread into two skyscrapers if there were no insiders? Was it the lone “rogue” scientist who did it all? I suppose he then somehow got Arab men to penetrate security at WTC and distribute the weapons grade material, and no one noticed? Or was it the lone rogue security person who let them in? Or did the Arabs pretend to be an elevator company in NYC . . . ?
The more one considers it, the more ridiculous it becomes to claim that the results cannot involve insiders.
This was also Barbara Honegger’s position — that Arab men piggy-backed the attack on existing events.
Interesting that they are/were both government officials. To some extent, perhaps there is a level of denial that exists for some in the positions they’ve been in (although for Honegger I just don’t know), the Navy and the State Dept. These are not average government jobs, but involve a level of commitment that being an IRS worker or a HUD employee does not.
Mr. Blum asks seven really good questions. If we could answer them, we’d be ready to walk into a courtroom and start proceedings. These questions should have been addressed by the 911 Commission instead of being left in the hands of private citizens, researchers and “truthers”. Had there been an honest investigation we’d have some answers. Speculation is the result of not having the answers.
The questions each need thorough examination and until that happens, we are left to speculate. What do the experts say ? Dr. Bob Bowman says UA Flight 93 was shot down. That’s what the evidence shows. Bowman also says it’s possible that AA 11 and UA 175 were directed by remote control. No one is more qualified to comment on those questions than a former combat pilot and rocket scientist.
Regardless of any theories or speculations, the “let it happen on purpose” and “made it happen on purpose” explanations are just different levels of treasonous behavior. If the attacks were allowed to happen, those who deliberately failed to stop them are accessories after the fact, just as guilty as if they had planned it.
In the void left by the silent complicity of the media, the “truthers” continue to research and expose evidence, ask new questions and find more reasons to consider the “inside job” scenario.
The standard of evidence in this country is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Mr Blum seems to admit that that threshold has been met. Then he moves the goal post demanding we explain in minute details exactly what happened. If that standard were applied to our Criminal Justice system then our prisons would be empty. No prosecutor in this country is expected to explain in minute details exactly how a crime was committed with the ‘stipulation’ that if any small little detail can not be fully explained with certainty then it means the suspect is completely innocent! But that seems to be what is expected of the truth Movement. That is complacence. It is my opinion that Mr. Blum knows full well 911 was an inside job. However lacking the moral courage to take the next step,he demands more and more evidence. If his lists of questions were answered fully and completely and fully implicated the US Government,he’d would NOT then admit 911 was an inside job,he’d come up with another list of questions. It’s a form of running away from the Truth.
I think we should acknowledge that there are two things going on here that seem to be confusing people in the movement a bit.
First, Blum’s comments basically indicate support for further inquiry. That kind of endorsement comes at a high price for someone with any interest in maintaining mainstream credibility. In that sense, his statement is brave as he will certainly be ridiculed for it. And I think we should be supportive to some degree.
Second, as I said in my comment on his article, he has demonstrated no significant degree of interest in the details. He did little research into the issue and yet has acted like his opinion should hold weight. As you point out, he’s holding the movement to an unreasonable standard of proof and simply must know that he’s off base. In that sense his comments aren’t genuine and indicate a willingness to dodge the truth in the interest of maintaining his credibility.
Unfortunately, he seems a bit confused. He already stepped over the line and so there’s little need to keep us at arms distance. He seems to be saying, ‘yeah they are right, but I’m not one of them.’ That’s the reason for the title. He’s not supporting the movement but only it’s premise. And that just doesn’t hold up.
I glad for the endorsement, but confused at people’s willingness to accept such a high degree of cognitive dissonance.