We Might Be Wrong About 9/11
During my recent debate with 9/11 “debunker” Pat Curley, in his closing statement – after listing a plethora of different theories from a whole spectrum of individuals, including many I do not endorse – he asked, “would anybody in the 9/11 Truth Movement say, “well, OK, we were wrong?” if, in fact, a new investigation found that we were. He then answered his own question by saying, “and the answer is “of course not,” so stop pretending that all you want is another investigation – you want another investigation that comes to the conclusions that you believe.”
Just to show him that we’re not the close-minded people he thinks we are, here’s a list of some things we might be wrong about.
We might be wrong to think that people like Dick Cheney and George Bush should have wanted to investigate anything and everything that led to the horrible attacks of 9/11, instead of trying to “limit the scope” of those investigations, and fight against the families who wanted them, and rightfully so.
We might be wrong to think that our intelligence agencies should have known something was up because of the suspicious trading that took place prior to 9/11. Trading that they monitor.
We might be wrong to think that ALL of the suspicious trading should have been thoroughly investigated by the 9/11 Commission, and that their conclusion that the trading was “innocuous” is wrong.
We might be wrong to think that the multitude of warnings our Government received prior to 9/11 should have caused people within the Bush Administration to warn the American public, and take precautions to make sure the attacks didn’t succeed.
We might be wrong to think that former Atty Gen. of New York, Eliot Spitzer, should have responded to the Justice for 9/11 Citizens’ Complaint and Petition delivered to his office in 2004.
We might be wrong to think that a good friend of Dick Cheney’s, Lee Hamilton, someone known for covering up other things like the October Surprise, and the Iran/Contra Affair, should not have been made the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission.
We might be wrong to think that people like Robert Mueller should have answered all of the families’ questions when they were asking him to his face.
We might be wrong to think that someone with so many conflicts of interest with the Bush Administration, Philip Zelikow, should not have been put in charge of the 9/11 Commission.
We might be wrong to be concerned about a statement by former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland that says, “as each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted.”
We might be wrong to think that the multiple wargames taking place on the morning of 9/11 caused confusion on the ground, and that ALL of them should have been thoroughly investigated.
We might be wrong to think that Donald Rumsfeld should have responded in writing to former Rep. Cynthia McKinney about her question regarding the wargames taking place that morning.
We might be wrong to think that the most defended airspace in the world should not have been left completely undefended 34 minutes after the second tower was hit, when everyone in the world knew America was under attack.
We might be wrong to think that either Dick Cheney, Richard Myers, Ralph Eberhart or Donald Rumsfeld somehow impeded the air response that morning.
We might be wrong to think that members of our Government should not meet with an alleged financier of the attacks without being brought forward publicly to testify about those meetings.
We might be wrong to think that elements within our Government and others collaborate with the Pakistani ISI to initiate terrorist attacks around the world in order to create a “strategy of tension.”
We might be wrong to think that someone like Shyam Sunder should have met with people like Dr. Steven Jones to at least look at the information he has collected.
We might be wrong to think that the Bush Administration should not have done everything in their power to cover up possible Saudi Arabian involvement.
We might be wrong to think that Israeli spies in this country prior to 9/11 should have been investigated thoroughly.
We might be wrong to think that someone like Khalil Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden’s brother, a person with alleged ties to terrorism, should not have been allowed to leave the country so soon after 9/11 without having been thoroughly investigated.
We might be wrong to think that the 28 redacted pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry should be de-classified.
We might be wrong to think that whistleblowers should not be retaliated against, or gagged because they were trying to do the right thing.
We might be wrong to think that the Secret Service should have immediately moved the President out of Emma E. Booker Elementary that morning in order to protect him, the children, and the school faculty present.
We might be wrong to think that the President should have immediately wanted to deal with the occurring crisis instead of continuing with a photo-op.
We might be wrong to think that 9/11 should not have been used to take away our civil liberties, and start pre-emptive wars against countries that had nothing to do with the attacks.
We might be wrong to think that the murder of 2,973 people should be treated as a crime instead of as an “act of war.”
We might be wrong to think that the media in this country should cover things like family members calling for an entirely new investigation on two separate occasions.
We might be wrong to think that everyone that was in the PEOC should have been brought forward to testify publicly and under oath about what happened that morning.
We might be wrong to think that Dick Cheney and George Bush should have been made to testify publicly and under oath.
We might be wrong to think that there shouldn’t be a single family member with doubts about how their loved one was murdered, and who was responsible for it.
We might be wrong to think that the heroes of 9/11 should be given the health care that they need, and that those who lied about the air quality should be held accountable.
We might be wrong to think that if people acted either incompetently or criminally within our Government, then they should be held accountable, as opposed to being promoted or rewarded.
We might be wrong to think that the event that created the “Post-9/11 World” should be THOROUGHLY investigated to make sure all of the actions taken in the name of that day are justified, responsible, and in we, the people’s best interests.
In conclusion, I’d like to say that yes, we may very well be wrong. On the other hand, we may very well be right. If we are right, and I’m certain that we are, at least about SOME of it, would you Pat Curley, would you Mark Roberts, would you Ron Wieck, would you James Bennett, would you Troy Sexton, would you Jim Miegs, would you Michael Shermer, would you Chip Berlet, would you members of JREF… would you… would you… hmmm… are there any more debunkers than that?
Would you admit you were wrong? Would you apologize to all of the families you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the first responders you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the sincere members of the 9/11 Truth Movement you have slandered, harassed, and/or threatened? Either by directly taking part in these acts, or by promoting them? Would you apologize to the 9/11 Truth Movement for trying to paint us all as crazies by focusing on the fringiest of the fringe?
Would you? Of course not so stop pretending like you know anything about 9/11 because you certainly do not.
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
So Pat basically did what I said he does, and he also showed how dishonest he is. He focused “on the fringiest of the fringe,” and tried “to paint us all as crazies.” I never promoted half of what he said, and in every instance of what he… said, I made a comment of disapproval long before he ever wrote this piece. He showed how dishonest he is by claiming that Patty Casazza and Bob McIlvaine are considered “fringe.” First of all, they both lost someone that day. They’re family members, not fringe. Secondly, both of them attended every 9/11 Commission Hearing, and Patty was partly responsible for its creation, as well as working with the staffers, and providing 100’s of well researched questions for them to answer. She is anything but “fringe,” and her story is about a whistleblower. One of MANY the 9/11 Commission ignored or censored.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/02/yes-you-are-shameful.html
I notice that you never mention any of the findings of the 9/11 truth scientists, e.g. “We might be wrong in thinking that the NIST account of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7 violates elementary laws of physics,” Or “We might be wrong in thinking that large quantities of nanothermite and residue of thermite reactions in the form of iron microspheres are present throughout the dust left from the destruction of the buildings. Why not include these in the list? I would say they make it much stronger, while the scientific facts are strengthened by all the other questions which really concern the existence of a cover-up. Together the scientific observations about what did happen and all the other observations concerning the existence of a cover-up constitutes an overwhelming case for a new investigation.
Tony, you must have missed this:
“We might be wrong to think that someone like Shyam Sunder should have met with people like Dr. Steven Jones to at least look at the information he has collected.”
Reading that aricle I can’t help thinking you have validated the arguement that those in the 9/11 Truth Movement would be unlikely to admit to being wrong or would accept a verdict of some new investigation which concluded that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job.
You mean because it makes good points as to the reasons why we should be concerned?
Your statement is self-contradictory, possible due to a mis-spelling. Would you like to clarify your point?
A Wright said the article makes him think it’s true that people in the 9/11 truth movement would be unlikely to admit being wrong or accept a verdict of a new investigation that 9/11 was not an inside job. Well, let us have an investigation, and we will see. Whether I would admit I was wrong would, of course, depend on my estimate of the credibility of the new investigation. It would certainly have to include analysis of the dust samples by independent laboratories. If conclusions different from those of Harrit, et.al. were reached by any lab, they would have to publish the results and permit peer review by Harrit et. al. as well as other independent chemists. Also something better than the NIST reports would have to be written to explain how the buildings collapsed, and this paper would also be subject to peer review by Steven Jones, David Chandler, as well as lots of independent physicists. I would accept the results of such an investigation. As true men of science, I would expect Harrit, Jones, Ryan, Chandler et. al. to accept them al well. A real investigation would of course look into not only the purely scientific aspects of 9/11 but would also look into all the other questions raised by Jon Gold in the article.
“Other questions?”
I’d like you to consider the possibility that you know CD better than you know 9/11 Truth Movement strategy.
The people running this site have a lot of shared experience and understanding of that. Victoria Ashley, for instance, not only knows as much as anyone about CD but also, very importantly, understands how it fits into the bigger picture of the movement. She has a balanced understanding of it’s role among many other concerns and also clearly understands how it has been used to undermine the movement.
That is very specifically something lacking among many of the movement ‘scholars.’ In fact, many of the scholars have done the movement a great dis-service by taking on leadership roles without first becoming more familiar with the movement’s character and dynamics.
My education in 9/11 truth movement dynamics, and that of many here, took years of direct experience and close attention to the swamp of disinformation that many of the ‘scholars’ have basically ignored. I don’t know physics. I know disinformation.
Scholars don’t make good leaders because scholars are supposed to remain apolitical in their field. We need them to be good scientists and that’s it. We’re not asking them to be good at promotion. However, if they do want to take on leadership roles they certainly can’t act like being a physicist makes them good at political activism.
For that reason, I feel what we need is promotion moving the opposite direction than you seem to be pushing. We need the scholars to better acknowledge the practical knowledge of people who have shown leadership in strategic action. We need the scholars to remind people to read books like the Terror Timeline and The War on Truth. Frankly, we need other scholars to take a page from Gage, and his recent retraction of support for CIT, and use their intellect to help us take apart damaging speculation.
Jon Gold can’t make CD go away, if he wanted that. And it seems we have Vic and Jon posting here together without any heads rolling. It would be cool if you could add a layer of nuance to your repeated promotion of the centrality of CD research and maybe acknowledge that there is more to 9/11 truth than having facts in hand.