As I noted in an item yesterday, Jesse Ventura has a new book out, co-authored with
Dick Russell, called American Conspiracies, which includes an excellent chapter on
election fraud and its connection to the likely murder of Mike Connell.
Well, this morning, Jesse had a front-page piece on 9/11 up at HuffPost: a front-page
piece that quickly slipped off that front page–and then completely disappeared.
Here’s what you’ll find there now (or will, until they take that down as well):
Jesse Ventura
Author, American Conspiracies
Posted: March 9, 2010 11:00 AM
Editor’s Note: The Huffington Post’s editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories — including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post.
All that’s up there now are the comments left by 65 of HuffPost’s readers.
It’s worth noting that HuffPost already ran an excerpt from another chapter of American
Conspiracies, about the US “war on drugs,” and they had no problem with that subject.
But this one is, as we all know, taboo. Clearly, even to question the official story of 9/11
is to engage in “conspiracy theories” (as if the official story weren’t itself a “conspiracy
theory,” and a preposterous one at that). Such is always the response of the US mainstream
media (the foreign media tends to be more open-minded)–and it’s also the response
of our left/liberal media, as this amazing act of censorship makes clear.
So here is the offending piece. Please read it; and let’s all try to locate the particular points
that are so obviously wild and baseless that HuffPost had to kill the whole piece insantly.
MCM
Huffington Post/Jesse Ventura – Article #2 (“American Conspiracies”)
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH?
You didn’t see anything about it in the mainstream media, but two weeks ago at a conference in San Francisco, more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.
That’s right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy – because they don’t buy the government’s version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible – or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, put it like this: “The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction.” He’s especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 47 stories came down in “pure free-fall acceleration” that afternoon – even though it was never hit by an aircraft.
This is a subject I take up in my new book, American Conspiracies, published this week by Skyhorse. An excerpt follows:
Some people have argued that the twin towers went down, within a half hour of one another, because of the way they were constructed. Well, those 425,000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel were designed to hold up against a Boeing 707, the largest plane built at the time the towers were completed in 1973. Analysis had shown that a 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour (and those had four engines) would not cause major damage. The twin-engine Boeing 757s that hit on 9/11 were going 440 and 550 miles an hour.
Still, we are told that a molten, highly intense fuel mixture from the planes brought down these two steel-framed skyscrapers. Keep in mind that no other such skyscraper in history had ever been known to collapse completely due to fire damage. So could it actually have been the result of a controlled demolition from inside the buildings? I don’t claim expertise about this, but I did work four years as part of the Navy’s underwater demolition teams, where we were trained to blow things to hell and high water. And my staff talked at some length with a prominent physicist, Steven E. Jones, who says that a “gravity driven collapse” without demolition charges defies the laws of physics. These buildings fell, at nearly the rate of free-fall, straight down into their own footprint, in approximately ten seconds. An object dropped from the roof of the 110-story-tall towers would reach the ground in about 9.2 seconds. Then there’s the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started its investigation on August 21, 2002.
When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Steven E. Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn’t have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9/11, with Governor Pataki and my wife Terry. It didn’t mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures.
These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever. And this was all due to jet fuel? We’re talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal, in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive. Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the Twin Towers and the nearby Building 7:
“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly.
Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.”[i]
Richard Gage is one of hundreds of credentialed architects and structural engineers who have put their careers on the line to point out the detailed anomalies and many implications of controlled demolition in the building collapses. As he puts it bluntly: “Once you get to the science, it’s indisputable.”
Do you like this article? Share It!
70 Comments to “Jesse Ventura’s piece on 9/11–KILLED BY HUFFPOST!”
Post comment
Additional comments powered by BackType
Make a minimum donation of $21.00 (FREE Shipping*) to Buzzflash and receive the Crude" DVD: The Toxic Rape of the Amazon by Texaco-Chevron. A Must Watch if You Want to Reclaim Earth from Its Corporate Oil Destroyers, directed by Joe Berlinger.
Help News From Underground!
Recent Posts
- Fracking poisons poisons crops and cattle
- Open letter to Mark Blumenthal of pollster.com (Richard Charnin)
- Obama wants more US arms exports
- Nora Dannehy’s investigation of US Attorney firings has a funny smell
- Open letter to Markos Moulitsas: Why is election fraud taboo on Kos?”
Recent Comments
- July 31/10 Masonic Medical Doctors, e-Medical Records & N.A. Concentration Camps « Three Dead Words on Gardasil kills girls
- mcrispinmiller on Open letter to Mark Blumenthal of pollster.com (Richard Charnin)
- trishlet on Obama wants more US arms exports
- mcrispinmiller on Obama wants more US arms exports
- mikedelic on Two cheers for WashPost’s exposé (Jeremy Scahill)
mcrispinmiller says:
NewsFromUnderground: Jesse Ventura’s piece on 9/11–KILLED BY HUFFPOST! http://bit.ly/d72gQH
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
mcrispinmiller says:
NewsFromUnderground: Jesse Ventura’s piece on 9/11–KILLED BY HUFFPOST! http://bit.ly/d72gQH
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Bakari45 says:
NewsFromUnderground: Jesse Ventura’s piece on 9/11–KILLED BY HUFFPOST! http://bit.ly/d72gQH (via @mcrispinmiller)
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Bakari45 says:
NewsFromUnderground: Jesse Ventura’s piece on 9/11–KILLED BY HUFFPOST! http://bit.ly/d72gQH (via @mcrispinmiller)
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Claudia says:
So…………no “conspiracy theories” means no reporting on conspiracies at all! How handy. (and HuffPo closed the comments off asap)
John P. Garry says:
Okay, I’ll bite. This entire post is wild and base-less.
This post, like so may others, misconstrues the “official story.” No one claims that the Twin Towers were brought down by fire alone. Experts claim was it was a combination of fire and structural damage caused by the impacts of the planes. This post repeats the straw man argument that “fire could not have done it.”
“200,000 tons of steel” did not “disintegrate” on 9/11. Marvin the Martian might be able to disintegrate steel in a Warner Bros cartoon but that is not what happened to the WTC. A steel frame skyscraper lost its structural integrity and collapsed. The structure of the building disintegrated, the steel itself did not disintegrate—a big difference.
Ventura’s comparison of a 707 and a 757 is meaningless. The number of engines the planes have is irrelevant. What is relevant is the mass of the planes. A plane with two engines can have more mass than a plane with four engines.
The speed of the planes is also irrelevant. A fast 707 might not have the same mass as a slower 757. Ventura simply does not provide enough data here to make a meaningful comparison. Or, more likely, Ventura doesn’t understand the concept of a meaningful comparison.
It is also possible that the WTC designer’s expectations of the tower’s ability to survive a plane crash might be wrong—it was something that was never tested, of course. Why does Ventura automatically accept the WTC designer’s word and doubt the word of the government investigators? They’re the same basic group of people: trained architects and engineers.
Gravity-driven collapses without explosives have occurred in history, but not to modern skyscrapers. The tower in St. Marks Square in Venice collapsed on its own. The spire-tower of a British Gothic cathedral collapsed on its own. The interior of the Pantheon in Paris has been falling down (at least when I was there). These buildings (I assume) simply weren’t built strong enough to endure the aging of their materials.
The speed of the Twin Towers collapse is often brought up. The implication seems to be that the buildings fell too fast. But if they fell at the wrong speed what is the right speed? No one ever says. And they don’t say because there is no meaningful comparison to be made. 110-story buildings have never collapsed before. No one knows what the “right” speed for such a collapse is. The difference between a 9.2 second freefall and the (supposed) 10 second collapse of each tower is hardly evidence of explosives. It is, however, evidence of the ignorance of Truthers. The disintegration of a structure will of course be slower than an object falling in free space.
If the speed of the collapses can only be explained by the presence of explosives you have to tell me what the speed should have been without explosives. This whole speed issue is meaningless chatter. The people who bring this up usually know nothing about physics. The blithe ignorance and pretentiousness of the Truthers shines forth with this issue.
“Then there’s the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.”
Which is it? Did the buildings fall into their own footprints or was debris tossed laterally 500 feet? It can’t be both. A distance of 500 feet is, by definition, outside the footprint of a building, which is defined by the area where the towers meet the ground. The inability of Truthers to be consistent within the space of a single page is amazing.
This lateral tossing is, of course, strong evidence that there were no explosive demolitions, because in controlled demolitions nothing gets tossed laterally. That’s what “controlled” means.
I am not impressed by a Truther conference of “a thousand” architects and engineers. Again, numbers require context to be meaningful. How many architects and engineers are there in the US? Archsoc.com claims 107-150,000 architects in the US. The Bureau of Labor Statistics claims that there are 278,000 civil engineers in the country.
One thousand Truthers out of these groups is well within the normal distribution of contrarians within any field. This doesn’t prove that they are wrong, it merely shows that they are a tiny minority. This statistic only proves that architects can be blinded by ideology, are susceptible to fantasy, and can lack critical thinking skills as much as any other group.
Also a “conspiracy” and a “conspiracy theory” are not the same thing.
Yes, there are conspiracies in history. There was a conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar, there was a conspiracy by Republicans to spy on Democrats during the Nixon Administration, and Al Qaeda members conspired to perpetrate the 9/11 attacks. But to study these events is not to engage in “conspiracy theory.” To do so is to simply engage in history; the use of surviving objects, memories, and recordings to create an explanatory narrative about past events.
A conspiracy theory is an explanation for events that deliberately, consciously opposes itself to conventional/official explanations. Conspiracy theories almost always posit a secret, poorly seen power which is exercising control behind—perhaps in opposition to—official recognizable powers. This power is omnipotent, omniscient, and able to extract absolute obedience and loyalty from its members. Conspiracy theorists tend to not uncover new information, but submit existing information to imaginative, implausible interpretations.
Conspiracy theories depend upon the ignorance of the audience. The average person does not know much about, say, communist politics, the occult, the functions of the brain, ballistics, the CIA, or structural engineering, therefore it is easy to concoct and spread conspiracy theories which make unsupported claims about these topics, such as “The International Communist Conspiracy,” Recovered Memory Syndrome, subliminal advertising (remember that, Professor Miller?), Ritual Satanic Abuse, alien abductions, the POW/MIA Myth, 9/11 Truth. These theories seem plausible to people who know little or nothing about these subjects. They don’t have the knowledge necessary to either confirm or refute these theories.
I think the Huffington Post’s policy on conspiracy theories is right on.
John P. Garry III
Los Angeles
Claudia says:
JPG wrote: “A conspiracy theory is an explanation for events that deliberately, consciously opposes itself to conventional/official explanations. ”
Perhaps that was its original definition, but today it is also a ploy to discredit dissent and contrary opinion, and as a perjorative label which expects the reader to stop any critical thinking process. (And there are examples of “conspiracy theories” from former eras of course that history has proven to be true.)
The powers-that-be assume we are superficial and easily deflected. They are right of course, so perception management is as much a game as an art.
When the members of the 911 Commission loudly proclaim they were lied to and mislead by the government, it is not unreasonable to question the “offical explanation” of events. It may in fact be a citizen’s duty.
John P. Garry says:
Claudia wrote: And there are examples of “conspiracy theories” from former eras of course that history has proven to be true.)
I disagree, for the reasons I state.
A “conspiracy theory” is a defined mode of discourse. It has consistent features. One may not like being called a conspiracy theorist, but that doesn’t make the appellation less true. The discredit is entirely self-inflicted.
“Conspiracy theory” is both accurate and a pejorative. It is a pejorative the way the words “criminal” or “liar” are pejorative, because they denote people who do disreputable things, but that doesn’t mean it is an inaccurate label when applied properly.
Claudia wrote: The powers-that-be assume we are superficial and easily deflected.
So do conspiracy theorists, as their superficial, deflectionary arguments demonstrate.
JPG
Claudia says:
MK-ULTRA
Operation Mockingbird
Watergate
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study
Operation Northwoods
Iran-Contra
Secret CIA Prisons
all scoffed at but proved to be true
Mark Crispin Miller says:
John, just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?
John P. Garry says:
Prof. Miller wrote: John, just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?
Film editor.
Claudia wrote: all scoffed at but proved to be true.
My definition of a “conspiracy theory” is not “something that is publicly scoffed at.”
People can scoff at things that are conspiracy theories, as well as at things that are not conspiracy theories. People can call things “conspiracy theories” incorrectly. I do not claim that there are no conspiracies in history. But, again, the study of these events does not constitute “conspiracy theorizing.”
Nixon may have called the Washington Post’s stories on Watergate “a conspiracy theory” but he would be wrong.
People may use “conspiracy theory” purely as a pejorative, but that’s their problem, not mine. I use the term correctly (as a form of discourse and a pejorative).
BTW, Prof Miller is an English Professor. I would think he would be able to spot a literary genre when he sees one.
But you’ve proved my point, Claudia. None of the topics you list constitute “conspiracy theories.” These events were exposed through fact-based investigations, not paranoid theorizing and wild speculation. Their claims can be empirically verified. Conspiracy theories distort facts and are often so vast and abstract as to be non-verifiable (which is part of their structure and purpose).
I’ve reviewed some of the topics you cite on Wikipedia. It isn’t clear to me that these theories were first scoffed at then “proven.” There still seems to be some debate on whether or not there was an actual “Operation Mockingbird” which contained all CIA domestic proapganda efforts.
The best source of info on MK-ULTRA happens to be…US Government reports! Since Operation Northwoods was never actually implemented, it isn’t clear to me who believed in the plan and who “scoffed” at the plan.
Watergate was never “scoffed at” the way 9/11 Truthers are scoffed at. No one ever denied that burglars connected to the White House tried to bug the Democratic National Committee. This was established and accepted early in the investigation. The dispute was how high the conspiracy went, and this took time to uncover. No connection between the 9/11 hijackers and the US government has been revealed, so Watergate is not a good comparison, to say the least.
The Watergate and Iran-Contra events were confirmed by their respective participants. These scandals were uncovered and dealt with publicly in a few years. People broke rank with their allies and superiors to expose these scandals. Nothing comparable has occurred vis-à-vis 9/11.
Go to the website of The Washington Post and look at the original Watergate reporting. The connection between the burglars and the White House (the hinge of the entire story) was established very quickly. The reports do not, in fact, claim any conspiracy. They simply reveal new facts and connections as the reporters discovered them.
The early reports do not posit a vast conspiracy (which, in fact, there was). The reporters’ claims are very modest. In the early stories the reporters don’t even speculate that the Republican Party might be behind the break-in. Wow. Talk about self-restraint. Talk about limiting oneself to what can be verified. The Post reporters did use unnamed sources but at least they had sources. 9/11 Truthers have no sources and present no new information—they fantasize, speculate and disinform.
It seems to me the exposures of Watergate and Iran-Contra provide powerful evidence against 9/11 Truth claims. Government misdeeds are hard to hide. People within government break rank and spill the beans on their corrupt bosses all the time.
There’s also the question of consistency. If the national security state cannot pull off some burglaries, support anti-communists, and lie about yellow-cake in Africa without getting caught how can they pull off something as complex and dastardly as the 9/11 attacks? Truthers are actually better off not mentioning Watergate and Iran-Contra.
Far more interesting to me are theories that were believed (by many), and then discarded or forgotten. These topics are more relevant to 9/11 Truth than Watergate and Iran-Contra.
The POW/MIA Myth rarely publicly scoffed at, but has been slowly dying on its own.
Ritual Satanic Abuse (a sort of sociological conspiracy theory) has been directly disputed, but has declined through its utter lack of verification, disastrous trials, and eventual disuse.
I suspect the same will not happen to 9/11 Truth, which has become a sort of ur-myth or omni-myth like the JFK Assassination Myth.
John P. Garry III
Claudia says:
JPG has conveniently defined “conspiracy theory” for himself. It would be nice if that were also the definition used by the media, but often it is not.
Rather that trade references endlessly, let me just say that perception management has become a growth industry and the volume of information available makes it quite easy for facts to be hidden or buried long enough to become of little public interest.
The “father” of public manipulation, Edward Bernays, wrote:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the [public] is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.’
Mark Crispin Miller, Jesse Ventura, and the Huffington Post « Arthur Goldwag says:
[...] writer I genuinely admire; I wondered if something wasn’t up. I checked out his own website, “News From Underground” and found out. Miller, who has written extensively on Republican election fraud, liked what Ventura [...]
Manny Mora says:
If you have been injured by Toyota, hire attorney Melvin Black in Coconut Grove Florida.
I highly recommend Mel for any criminal defense requirements.
He is a handler of such notables as Manny Mora, under cover Narc, who became a drug addict and was sent to Fallon Nevado to refuel the stealth fighter prior to its becoming public.
Mel has a direct pipeline into the Justice Department and he will make sure that all your criminal defense needs are met. He does have a little problem with confidentiality, but what the hell.
Call Mel the next time you have a problem with the law.
John P. Garry says:
Claudia, what definition of “conspiracy theory” is used by the media? Give specific examples if possible. How is the media’s definition(s) different from my own?
JPG
Claudia says:
Sounds more like a mid-term exam question than a discussion of perception/actual conspiracies, so I beg to be excused.
Claudia says:
On a related note, this post appeared today in a science blog on the Politics of Science. Citizens have reason to question “official stories”:
“An interesting article in the Telegraph today (12th March) tells of a 60-year-old CIA experiment involving unsuspecting villagers in the south of France, where the US government spiked local foods with LSD to test the drug as an offensive weapon.
For decades townspeople of Pont-Saint-Esprit, France, have wondered what caused the mass hallucinations and hysteria that struck their quaint village in 1951. Older residents still remember Le Pain Maudit (Cursed Bread) and have long believed that a town baker accidentally contaminated his bread with ergot, a hallucinogenic mould that infects rye grain. Another theory posited baked-in mercury as the cause of the episode, in which several people committed suicide and dozens landed in asylums.
The Telegraph article focuses on A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments, a new book by investigative journalist H. P. Albarelli Jr. While investigating the death of Frank Olson, a biochemist for he U.S. Army’s Special Operations Division (SOD) at Fort Detrick, Maryland, Albarelli spoke to colleague of Olson’s who acknowledged, “that agents had sprayed LSD” and contaminated food products, according the Telegraph.
In his book, Albarelli also claims that the CIA drugged a number of U.S. serviceman in the 1950s, as part of their experiments with LSD.
There’s no shortage of tales of bizarre and unethical experiments involving LSD in the 1950s-60s, but do you think tests like this are still conducted? How would we know if they were?
Lauren Urban — Editor, The Scientist”
Read more: LSD from the CIA – The Scientist Community – debate. relate. collaborate. http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/922.page#ixzz0hzNmMr5K
Claudia says:
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/revisiting-911/#more-6133
Good article that summarizes unanswered questions prompting many to demand another investigation.
Hume's Ghost says:
"or have my blood pressure spike when I pass Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly when I’m changing channels"If you’ve seen one episode of Beck’s program you’ve seen them all. Every show he’s just repeating the same basic message: liberals are really progressives, progressives are really fascists, fascists and communists are really the same thing; progressives want to destroy America and are achieving it throught their sinister 100 year nefarious plans and what not.Beck now has his 3rd propaganda "documentary" (its up on youtube) which says the same thing as the first two, i.e., that progressives are totalitarians trying to destroy America. This one focuses on how progressives have rewritten American history to hide their fascist past so that America will be "doomed to repeat" the fascism that was F.D.R.’s New Deal. Funny how genius historian Beck kinda overlooks the small, inconveniet detail that actual American fascists (like, say, the German American Bund or the Black Legion) of the period were opposed to the communist "Jew Deal" and even infamously killed a WPA worker.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,756152,00.htmlTheir message sounded sorta like Beck’shttp://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=151Running through the literature and rhetoric of the Black Legion was the fear of an international Communist takeover of the United States. Legionaires were ordered by their superiors to be prepared to take over federal government buildings with arms at what they called "zero hour," the date and time that communists would rise up throughout the United States and launch their attack on the country. In truth, however, the legion was led by unsophisticated men, "petty men," as one researcher has noted, who were most interested in the "pettiness of personal reform." Thus, the legion saw as its enemies not only blacks, Jews, and Catholics, but also welfare workers and recipients and labor union organizers.
This comment was originally posted on Arthur Goldwag
Hume's Ghost says:
"or have my blood pressure spike when I pass Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly when I’m changing channels"If you’ve seen one episode of Beck’s program you’ve seen them all. Every show he’s just repeating the same basic message: liberals are really progressives, progressives are really fascists, fascists and communists are really the same thing; progressives want to destroy America and are achieving it throught their sinister 100 year nefarious plans and what not.Beck now has his 3rd propaganda "documentary" (its up on youtube) which says the same thing as the first two, i.e., that progressives are totalitarians trying to destroy America. This one focuses on how progressives have rewritten American history to hide their fascist past so that America will be "doomed to repeat" the fascism that was F.D.R.’s New Deal. Funny how genius historian Beck kinda overlooks the small, inconveniet detail that actual American fascists (like, say, the German American Bund or the Black Legion) of the period were opposed to the communist "Jew Deal" and even infamously killed a WPA worker.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,756152,00.htmlTheir message sounded sorta like Beck’shttp://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=151Running through the literature and rhetoric of the Black Legion was the fear of an international Communist takeover of the United States. Legionaires were ordered by their superiors to be prepared to take over federal government buildings with arms at what they called "zero hour," the date and time that communists would rise up throughout the United States and launch their attack on the country. In truth, however, the legion was led by unsophisticated men, "petty men," as one researcher has noted, who were most interested in the "pettiness of personal reform." Thus, the legion saw as its enemies not only blacks, Jews, and Catholics, but also welfare workers and recipients and labor union organizers.
This comment was originally posted on Arthur Goldwag
Hume's Ghost says:
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention. In Beck’s "documentary", he actually runs footage and talks about the G-A Bund … to demonstrate the history of progressive fascism. Oh, the utter irony. Beck running footage of Kuhn denouncing the evil of atheistic, Bolshevik Jews, with Beck denouncing Kuhn for his speeches being nothing more than antiSemitic rants wrapped in the flag. Amazing how Beck fails to notice that his show is centered around denouncing the evil of atheistic, Bolshevik progressives, and that his own speeches are nothing more than anti-"progressive" rants wrapped in the flag.This really, really bothers me. Beck is saying that those fascists are "progressives" when in reality they hated and – where and when in power – persecuted the very people Beck accuses of being responsible for fascism. It’s sickening.
This comment was originally posted on Arthur Goldwag
Terry says:
Gatekeeping, essentially. I’ve read your own posts at Huff, and "conspiracy theories" were discussed, as they are for many posts there. Debunking’s fine – hell, it is even encouraged (and the proper stance to take). Once you challenge the pc message, however … They have been trying to be an extension of mainstream officialdom since they started in the first place. There is no voice for dissent in such a contrived setting. I bet there are a whole range of pissed off authors who’ve had their posts expunged as well.Ventura should have known better.
This comment was originally posted on Arthur Goldwag
Jeannon Kralj says:
9-11 was an inside job. It may have involved cooperation and planning assistance from operatives of other nations, but it could not have taken plance without the primary orchestration of the USA intellgigence and military industrial apparatus.
Consipirace is as American as applie pie. Something like 75 percent of all federal convictions are for conspiracy. The Latin roots of the word – con and spirare simply mean with and breathe. A conspiracy is when two or more people conspire (breathe togethere with each other in their thinking) in secret to commit and illegal act.
I think it is truly stupid for there to be a discussion of “conspiracy theories” at this point in time. The USA has a long hisotry of committing false flag terrorism and being involved in conspiracies.
I have never had much respect for Dr. Steven Jones and none for Richard Gage. Those folk are selling “heat” as the basic cause of the demise of the Twin Towers. There is zero proof or evidence of heat at the WTC site after the event.
We will never know what exactly took down the Towers. Building 7 appeared to be more of a traditional controlled demolition, different from what happened at the Twin Towers, but we do not know exactly what was used to demolisth Building 7.
Dr. Jones “peer reviewed study” does not pass muster for a legititmate scientific study. The samples were not random, for openers. The Bentham journal where it was published has a history of publishing just about anything for a price.
Dr. Jones and Mr. Gage have been contructing and peddling their “non-thermate” “official 9-11 truth story” (folks, it is not even an hypothesis, much less a theory) and it has now become the 9-11 truth orthodoxy.
It is a very sad state of affairs that we are not able to get 9-11 truth or justice and never will. We have proven that the official story, the 9-11 Commission Report, is a pack of lies, and we could prove that in a court of law. That is all we could ever do, but we will not be given that opportunity because there are many government operatives who are doing anything and everything to see that that court action does not happen.
The Twin Towers were blown to kingdom come. When evaluating what may hve been the physical agent of destruction, scientifically, one is compelled to consider ALL possible alternatives. That has not been done and much is being done to divert or sidetrack such inquiries.
It is grossly incorrect to use the word “collapse” in connection with what happened to the Twin Towers because the term “collapse” impies gravity and gravity does not appear to be involved in the blowing to kingdom come. (Try to find a video of the the South Tower descruction in progress. Notice that the top approximate 30 floors twist and tilt in one huge block and then just disintegrate (demolecularization) in thin air. The huge block from the top of the South Tower, WTC Building 2, did not “collapse” or “fall to the ground”.
We cannot have freedom if we cannot have truth.
Bruce says:
This type of censorship is NOW becoming a pattern among “liberal” gatekeepers, including also (at least) Common Dreams and Truthdig.
Craig R. Lane says:
JPG seems to know more about 9/11 than the 1000 or so architects and such. Good for him. And his marginalization of the characters and the supposed motives of conspiracy theorists is truly spot on. Can anyone tell me how the “official” 9/11 Commission’s findings are “better” or more substantive than a “conspiracy theory”? I mean the guys that led it have now acknowledged that they were lied to by the FBI and the NSA. The true conspiracy lies in the fact that they, the Bushies), didn’t want any investigation, that NO ONE was forced to testify under oath. That Condoleeza Rice could actually say with a straight face that no one could have ever imagined anyone slamming airplanes into buildings….the real conspiracy is the ignorance purveyed by those like JPG. They know everything and if you don’t you are a lowly conspiracy theorist. Go on believing that JFK was shot by one bullet…there were no stolen elections in 2000 AND 2004, 9/11 was perpetrated by guys in caves with lap-tops and guys with box cutters on airplanes, (box cutters have, since then, been re-allowed on airplanes), and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are completely justified. What a sad and well infoemed world you must live in. At least I feel that I don’t know anything even close to the truth on any of these matters. It must be quite the sin to want to know more, eh? Screw HuffPost too by the way. John Meyer’s racist cock is much more in the way of news I suppose. I mean, why should we respect the words of a former governer of a state that used to be a wrestler?
peedeecee says:
If indeed these buildings were brought down by “controlled demolition,” how does anyone account for the aircraft hitting them?
Jeannon Kralj says:
“If indeed these buildings were brought down by “controlled demolition,” how does anyone account for the aircraft hitting them?”
“Controlled demolition”
real definition – a demolishment of a building that is controlled by the acts of man.
The term “controlled demolition” may not be assumed to be a traditional controlled demoliton using the usual kinds of explosives that are used to demolsih buildings.
Yes, the WTC North and South towers were demolished by the action of men so we can say it was a “controlled demoliton”. But what we cannot say is that the WTC1 and WTC2 were demolished via a standard or traditonal “controlled demolition” that would employe “explosives” of various known kinds.
As stated before Ventura and Alex Jones and Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage have all been peddling what is not the official 9-11 Truth orthodoxy. This has nothing to do with truth at all. This same gang either will not speak about planes at all, as Dr. Steven Jones will not. Alex Jones has changed his ideas about “the planes” many times but he inisists that “planes” hit the towers.
There is a large body of information suggesting that Big Boeings (757s) did not fly into the Twin Towers. Suggest reading articles at NoMoreGames.net, website of Dr. Morgan Reynolds.
Some people in “The Jones Boys – nano thermate” camp like to call people who say no Big Boeings (actually no planes at all of any kind) crashed into the Towers on that fateful day “no planers” which is a misnomer. Suffice it to say there are many people, many credentialed scholars and scientists, who find zero evidence for planes at all crashing into the towers.
You look at what the “official story” 9-11 Commission Report says and you compare it to information about “the planes” and none of it computes!
Craig says:
Without going into the pros and cons as to what happened on 9/11, I’m disturbed by the apparent censorship policy at Huffington Post. It raises disturbing questions.
1) Does Huffington Post maintain a list of acceptable topics that can be discussed?
2) Are all gov. reports off limits or just the 9/11 Commission Report?
3) Does Huffington Post have an official position on what happened on 9/11 and does it
jibe with the 9/11 Report. After all, I’m sure most of us can agree that the events of 9/11 were a major, historical, national event? Based on HP’s policy regarding 9/11, one
have to assume that they agree fully with the Report without any questions.
4) What does the HP consider to be a “conspiracy theory” and who decided their definition?
5) Can one question the 9/11 Commission Report without being a conspiracy theorist?
Apparently, JPG here doesn’t think so.
__rexx__ says:
http://j.mp/bLoqvB _Jesse Ventura’s piece on 9/11–KILLED BY HUFFPOST!_ #p2 #911truth #ae911truth #wtc #wtc7 #ventura #censorship #usausa
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
David Morton says:
Fact, not theory: Mousaoui (the 20th hijacker) was arrested and his laptop was confiscated and subsequently sealed in early august 2001. This is the most important fact we need to get our head around. Are we to believe his laptop had nothing about the how and when of the planned attack?
Fact, not theory: On october 25 ,1999 golfer Payne Stewarts learjet lost contact with air traffic control. Reports at the time say an F16 was in visual contact within 20 minutes. CNN coverage at the time stated that was because of the possibility that hijackers might use a plane to do a suicide attack, flying it into a building. Are we to believe that policy was discontinued or that, as Condoleeza Rice as much as said, that the current administration had no idea such a thing could happen, and so the policy was discontinued?
Fact, not theory: It is obvious that our national air security system failed in 4 seperate instances within hours of each other while no person, no military commander, no air traffic control supervisor was held responsible, not even so much as a slap on the wrist. Are we to believe that nothing is wrong with that picture? Are we to believe that everything worked like it was supposed to?
And lastly, are we to believe that the presence of these explosive chemicals (Fact, not theory) are just a coincidence? That they were secretly being stored somewhere inside the buildings? If so, why didn’t the 911 “commission report” say so?
Perhaps what Mr. JPG is doing is arguing semantics. He seems to be saying that the term “conspiracy theory” means that, being a theory, it must then be incorrect. So, Watergate is a conspiracy fact, not a theory. The Tuskeegee Syphilis experiments are a conspiracy fact, not a theory.
Maybe what needs to be said is the 911 attacks were planned by terrorists (fact), that the plan was discovered in time to stop them (fact), but that our government along with some highly influential financial interests obviously did conspire to stand aside and allow the attacks to succeed. That these evil men did set up the three buildings for demolition, the towers and #7 in order to insure their total collapse and coverup of information contained in #7, knowing that in the aftermath the countrys attention could be focused on revenge and not on what a monumental national security failure the Bush administration was guilty of.
911 was a conspiracy no doubt. What suprises me about many who know this and say so, obviously don’t realize what the full implications of such a successful conspiracy means. They talk as if “The People” could actually do anything about it, that we actually even have a democracy at all. WE DO NOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY ANYWHERE IN THIS WORLD. The ruling classes run this world and what we get, be it on TV, the internet or the voting booth is bread and circuses.
We live in Orwells 1984. Mr. JPG is trying to be let in the inner party circle. Maybe he doesn’t even know it, but he really does see four fingers.
Steve L says:
The moment any argument is characterized as a “Conspiracy Theory”, it’s credibility is instantly brought into question. A conspiracy is simply a group of people acting together to accomplish a given end – and a theory is simply a possible explanation.
When the two terms are lumped together, however, they become a good example of how controlling language can also control ways of perceiving. David Morton refers to “1984″ above, and that novel also contains a pretty good illustration of the concept of controlling thought through language: the Newspeak dictionary aims to eliminate as many words from the language as possible, with the express intent of limiting dissent and independent thought.
There seems to be a great many people who feel the 9/11 Commission Report was significantly wanting – since this was truly a seminal occurrence in twenty-first century America, and, as noted above, the root cause of two foreign wars, it seems absurd that a proper and thorough investigation has not been conducted.
What I really would like to know is why George Tenet was awarded the Medal of Freedom for presiding over the most egregious intelligence failure in US history! That fact alone should set off alarm bells – not to mention all the other suggestive details, such as the call for a “New Pearl Harbor” by PNAC long before 9/11, the “dancing Israelis” from Urban Moving Systems, the thermite residue in the WTC dust, the indecent haste with which the salvage materials form the WTC were sold off and shipped off-shore… all the familiar “conspiracy” stuff – and these points are not wild conjecture: they are all part of the public record.
There are just too many questions, and it seems that very little effort has actually been made by “authorities” to answer them.
When those in power consider it sufficient to debunk, deny and characterize doubters of the official theory as Crazies, rather than actually conduct a transparent investigation of the facts, how can anyone who has lived through the last few decades, or anyone who has even a smattering of historical knowledge, NOT doubt the veracity of the accepted story?
One can sympathize with Huffpo’s desire to preserve some semblance of credibility by not encouraging the spread of “conspiracy theories” – but shouldn’t the first objective of any journalistic endeavour be the pursuit of truth?
Oh – let’s not forget that “Truth” itself is now a suspect word, as in “Truther”!
Jeannon Kralj says:
“Conspiracy Theory” has been the same tired old weapon used against people who ask questions about what we are told happened on 9-11.
Not only does much of the “official story” not make logical or even scientific sense, many aspects of the official story have been absolutely ridiculous. There appear to be evidence of planted (salted) evidence. I cqn only think of a few right now, but we were told that two passports of the “hijackers” were found at Ground Zero (the passports of Al Suqami and Mohamed Atta. These paper documents were allegedly found although the planes, the bodies and black boxes vaporized in the firey inferno.
There was a part of plane engine found on Murray Street was an engine of a Boeing 737, not a 767. There are many many other aspects of deliberately inserted false data into the official narrative.
Not only can there be no open discussion of 9-11, all dissent on any subject is being urniversally suppressed now.
There needs to be much more investigation of 9-11, but I do not think it can ever happen. The “evidence” has been destroyed forever.
Huffpost has just made a complete joke out their entire site. There are many subjects discussed there that seem to hinge on conspiracy having been engaged in, yet those subjects are allowed.
I do not agree with some of Jesse Ventura’s points, but I think almost all of us have a few things we agree on, and those are that there was a massive cover up and that planes or fire did not cause the buildings to destruct.
We can disagree on HOW the buildings were destroyed and we can disagree about the validity of Dr. Steven Jones “studies”.
I think it would be possible to prove in a court of law that the 9-11 Commission Report is full of not only gross inaccuracies, but also outright falsifications, however, I do not believe it is possibly any longer to get justice on the subject of 9-11.
David Morton says:
First, a correction. It was five fingers Winston was supposed to be seeing, when O’Brien was holding up four. It’s been a long time since I read 1984.
“…I do not believe it is possibl(e) any longer to get justice on the subject of 9-11.” – Jeannon Kralj
My point exactly. As a matter of fact, it has been that way for many atrocities commited by the ruling classes for quite a long time.
And to expand further, the dire foreboding of future atrocities possibly planned by such brazen crimminals having apparent immunity from their crimes against humanity is clearly indicated.
I say fascism has taken over the world. There is no viable opposition to the One World Party. That they have let this much information be disseminated on the internet speaks to me volumes of what power they have over the future course of human history, and that they soon expect to implement a system of even greater control.
Craig says:
I wonder if HP will be reporting this tidbit that came out today given their blackout of 9/11.
======================================================
Revealed: Ashcroft, Tenet, Rumsfeld warned 9/11 Commission about ‘line’ it ’should not cross’
“Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.”
” 9/11 Commission members Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton wrote that although US President George W. Bush had ordered all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the probe, “recent revelations that the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot.”
“Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.”
They continued: “There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the CIA — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot.
“Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations,” Kean and Hamilton wrote.”
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/revealed-ashcroft-tenet-rumsfeld-warned-911-commission-line-should-cross/
Mark says:
Mr. John P. Garry’s comments are interesting and to a degree logical, but the “truthers” do not discount the jet impacts altogether. It’s just that the impacts are over quickly and fires tend to linger. Clearly, all that concrete would not and could not have been decimated merely by the impacts, the lingering fires and simple clunk-clunk-clunk gravitational collapse. Some kind of energy was involved to demolish/decimate the structure. A controlled demolition just means someone was behind it, it does not mean that every beam would behave the way they planned. If there were too many explosive charges in a given area of the towers, then some beams could shoot out laterally. And many of those shot out with way more force than gravity alone could explain. This does not automatically mean that Richard Gage and others are right about every single strand of what happened, but to believe the official story is out of the question. If NIST would have tested for explosives and examined the crime after the point of “collapse,” the government might have a shred of credibility. Gage and company are just saying let’s have a new investigation and FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED, and anyone who believes the Hamilton-Kean group was a real probe really needs mental therapy. Why won’t the government release ALL the Pentagon footage, by the way? And if Building 7 were a normal house fire, for the sake of discussion, then a Mr. Silverstein getting a large payoff amid supicious circumstances would invite a huge probe. But he’s rich and connected, so nothing happens. Mr. Garry also does not mention Building 7 which lacked the impacts to which he assigns so much importance. The answer to his query, by the way, is that believing that not one but both towers would be ground to dust and small rubble in, to be generous, under 20 seconds each — when one tower was hit much more obliquely than the other by an apparent jet liner and would have caused a different damage pattern — is beyond the limits of credibility. And there is no reason to discount the many witnesses hearing charges go off, not to mention countless anamolies like the entire steel frame of the building losing its structural integrity with such universal weakness when the fires were limited to a relative few upper floors, and rusted out cars that were hit by debris and were not rusty before the event and on and on. Surely a new probe for the 10-year anniversary would meet with Garry’s approval, to test his ideas.
Maani says:
I would like HuffPost to answer the following questions:
1. Do they support the “lone gunman” theory of the JFK assassination?
2. Do they support LBJ’s claim re the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
3. Do they support Hitler’s claim that von Lubbe set fire to the Riechstag?
4. How, exactly, do they define “conspiracy theory?”
5. Given that figures as respected and diverse as Gen. Wesley Clark and Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Curt Weldon, Sens. Max Cleland, Bob Kerrey, Mark Dayton, Patrick Leahy, Lincoln Chafee and Chuck Schumer, Ray McGovern and Louis Freeh, Harry Belafonte and Richie Havens – among thousands of others – all support a new, thorough, nonpolitical investigation into the events of 9/11, are you suggesting that all of these people are simply “conspiracy nuts?”
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
As others have pointed out, the phrase “conspiracy theory” consists of two words: “conspiracy” – the planning and or execution of an event (usually illegal) by two or more persons – and “theory,” a belief or supposition supported by evidence.
Given this, the “official story” is no less a “conspiracy theory” than any alternative theory: the goverment claims the there was a conspiracy b/w OBL and Al Qaeda to hijack airliners and crash them into buildings. Their “evidence” to support this “theory” is The 9/11 Commission Report. Thus, if the Report is weak, compromised or otherwise faulty – which it unquestionably is – then the government’s “case” starts falling apart even before we start providing evidence for alternative theories.
It’s really too bad: HuffPost has a chance to really show some backbone and progressive leadership. Instead, they have simply proben that they are no less an instrument of the corporate state than any mainstream media source. Sad.
Maani says:
Addendum:
Another interesting piece is at:
http://guerrillaunderground.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=4067498%3ABlogPost%3A4793&commentId=4067498%3AComment%3A4822
Mark says:
Maani makes some great points. The real “truther” is the government with its “falls-apart-at-first-glance” TALE of what happened, which is maintained with a case-closed mentality that is more rigid than a steel-framed building and will not collapse unless the citizens demand a new, honest and altogether thorough investigation for the 10-year anniversary. Nothing less will do. Surely, the government “truthers” with their amazing flying Muslims story will step aside and allow a new probe to vindicate their tale that is taller than the fallen towers. Surely, no one will protest.
WhitleyStrieber says:
Jesse Ventura’s 911 article KILLED by Huffpost. Why? Is it the truth? http://tinyurl.com/yzprbru
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
MichiganTelepho says:
Huffington Post censored article by Jesse Ventura about 9/11 – WHY? Read it here: http://tinyurl.com/yzprbru (via @WhitleyStrieber)
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Mike F says:
Okay, accepting that WTC1 & WTC2 may have collapsed not from melting steel but from the internal failures of the stacked flooring design, that still leaves WTC7 and most importantly, the Pentagon.
The aluminum body of the plane can be argued into disintegration but the engines and wings cannot. In these, there are tungsten and titanium, both which will withstand the temperatures created by jet fuel mixed with oxygen to burn at extremely high temps.
Even the cast iron block of an old prop plane will not simply go away from an impact, as is clearly demonstrated time and again during WW2 as Japanese Kamikazes drove their planes into the decks of steel warships. Those engines remained, often embedded in the ships, to be removed later.
Call them anomalies, or phenomenon or whatever, there are certain points of the 9.11 OS that simply do not withstand close scrutiny and no amount of politics will make a square peg fit into a round hole.
Jeannon Kralj says:
Nice comments, Mike F.
“Okay, accepting that WTC1 & WTC2 may have collapsed not from melting steel but from the internal failures of the stacked flooring design, that still leaves WTC7 and most importantly, the Pentagon.”
That is something that cannot be accepted. At WTC1 and WTC 2, there were no “failures”. There was no “collapse.” Period.
I guess it can be expected that on the subject of 9-11, we will get off original topic.
But this is good because it shows that 9-11 in the online sites such as Huffpost and others will have to be dealt with in another way. If an alternative news, commentary and discussion site claims to be giving true journalistic coverage and true First Amendment observance, they only deliver a lethal wound to their site’s viability by hauling out the “conspiracy theory” charge.
I have known and studied 9-11 as an “inside job” since 9-11-01. None of the official stores of events at Ground Zero, Pentagon, or Shanksville can in any way, shape or form be taken seriously.
ALL of the existing videos that incude “impact of plane” at the Twin Towers had to have been faked because all of those videos show a joke of an event where a plane melds into a gigantic strong steel and concrete building and then, with no plane crack-up, no plane parts breaking off and/or parts falling to the ground, or no plane part stuck in a hold in the building, and NO DECELLERATTION of the plane by viewing video frames and timing one by one, etc…and then the hold closes back up seamlessly and then an explosion happens where “Roadrunner or Wylie Coyote” cut-outs of a plane appear on the side of the building.. The “impact” videos depict a physical impossibility. Three of Newtons laws have been violated. That is an impossibility so the videos had to have been faked.
If i were to go on and talk about the Pentagon official story or the Shanksville official story, that just may provide way to much levity this early in the morning.
Discussion of 9-11 on the web and in public life, expecially in all future national and local political camaigns and elections, is not going to go away. We will never have another honest objective investigation of 9-11 though we have never had one and still need one. The government has already shown us what they have for us in the way of independent government investigations.
But it all does not make much difference now because our republic is fallen. We are descending into hell on earth as a nation. But it is always good for Americans to stand up and speak out for truth and justice.
Mark Crispin Miller says:
This is all fascinating, and important; but I think that, when it comes to answering those who keep defending the official story, the best first step is simply to demand that they reply to the specific claims put forward by, say, David Ray Griffin. Exactly _where_, and _how_, are his critiques of the OS mistaken? His factual claims, all fully sourced, are quite persuasive. So are they wrong?
This would make more sense than simply arguing in the abstract over, for example, whether the Twin Towers, or Building 7, could really have collapsed like that. Because, for one thing, I suspect that some, or most, of those would-be “debunkers” haven’t actually read (say) Griffin’s work; and, for another, because there’s a _lot_ more wrong with the OS than its explication for those grand collapses. And those who shout “conspiracy theory!” as a way to shut all disagreement down have to tell us how those many rational objections are _not_ rational.
And they must also be confronted with the fact—which the commisioners themselves have variously reconfirmed—that the commission was itself rushed, preposterously underfunded, adamantly stonewalled and otherwise impeded from the start. Indeed, the story of how doggedly the Bush administration struggled to prevent the inquiry from ever even happening is something that the OS’s defenders must contend with. (I tell that story in considerable detail in my book, Cruel and Unusual.)
And all we’re asking, finally, is that we have a genuine investigation at long last. Do those who stalwartly defend the OS think that that’s a bad idea? If so, they aren’t really interested in helping to find out what really happened: on the contrary.
Jeannon Kralj says:
” when it comes to answering those who keep defending the official story”
Well, I have heard almost no one who has called me a “conspiracy theorist” ever defend the official story. Their main intent is to just shut people up by calling them names, to kick them off of forums, to delete their postings or never post them at all. It never has had much to do with civil, open and itellegent discussion. So arguing succesffuly for a new investigation at this point in time is not the way a new “genuine investigation” could possibly happen
I am well familir with Griffin’s work, but it has never done much toward getting a new investigation, however I think it has done a great job of giving us grounds for a successful law suit against the government for providing us a dishonest investigation and report.
I cannot for the life of me figure out what there is today that would provide a basis for us thinking that the government would or could possibly provide and new genuine investigation. Nothing has changed. We have the Warren Report and things went down hill from there as far as the government investigating itself.
Mark Crispin Miller says:
Actually, there were several subsequent US investigations of the Kennedy assassination—most notably the one by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the Seventies. It broke new ground, greatly complicating the narrative laid out by the Warren Commission.
The fact that defenders of the OS choose never to bring up those subsequent reports does not mean that they (the reports) never existed, or that they shed no light on things.
Tom M says:
I am a progressive liberal leaning more to to the center and I read HuffPo almost daily. As I do many other sites.
However, I am under no illusions that Huffington Post, although appearing to be a progressive liberal site, is anything but just another bottom-line money making machine that would sacrifice facts and the truth for as many hits as possible so they can negotiate with their sponsors for more money.
They’re also very non-progressive liberal in that they heavily censor poster’s comments. They are particularly protective of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.
Go figure.
Claudia says:
The gatekeeping behavior and high-handed censorship-without-appeal practiced by so many supposedly Liberal websites is a dirty little secret. Many have been banned for speaking up for others who were banned for speaking up….. Stalin would love them.
intercepts says:
Huffington Post removes 911 conspiracy theory piece by Jesse Ventura http://bit.ly/9ntHRj
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Jeannon Kralj says:
“Actually, there were several subsequent US investigations of the Kennedy assassination—most notably the one by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the Seventies. It broke new ground, greatly complicating the narrative laid out by the Warren Commission.
The fact that defenders of the OS choose never to bring up those subsequent reports does not mean that they (the reports) never existed, or that they shed no light on things.”
I do not remember all that I have read on the JFK coverup. I do know that the House Select Committee in 1978 concluded that there was probably a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy, but then the National Research Council at the request of the Justice Department refuted the findings of the House Select Committee and put out a report to that effect in 1982.
I posted some “facts” I have about jkf in a Dallas newspaper about a year ago and I was descended upon by a pack of piranhas and I was called lots of names and told I was mentally ill. Amazing how strong the mental programming is after all these years.
I guess I am not aware of any of those subsequent reports that did shed some light on the JFK assassination. I try to read AssassinationSceince.com website and writings and from what I have gleaned, the government and all its agencies have just conducted one cover-up after another regarding jfk and the only real light has come from private researchers such as Dr. James Fetzer and many others.
Mark Crispin Miller says:
Re: JFK, I recommend the two books by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann. I also commend them for pushing hard to get the CIA to release the million documents that they’ve still refused to make public, in blunt defiance of a law that Congress passed directing them to do so; and Obama recently went soft on that one (too). Whatever one thinks happened on 11/22/63, we should all be making noise about it.
As for the liberal gatekeepers, I can tell you that they’ve been as bad about election fraud as they have about 9/11—if not even worse. I got into this in great detail in the afterword to the paperback edition of FOOLED AGAIN.