The mainstream media deems search for the truth about 9/11 to be crazed, vile, heinous, outrageous, ludicrous, dangerous, tantamount to sedition.
Corporate media attempts to discredit and discourage discussion about 9/11 by smearing any who raise concerns or voice doubt about the official conspiracy theory.
The most common method used to chill any discussion of 9/11 is to invoke the phrase "conspiracy theories" and to associate discussion of 9/11 with crazy thinking.
This is convenient, since the official explanation for the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and hence anyone discussing it can be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.
Of course, the term "conspiracy theorist" is only applied to those who dare question the official conspiracy theory. Those who accept and believe without question, the official conspiracy theory... well they're just normal rational people.
But beyond the fantasy bubble inhabited by establishment lackeys, people are well aware of the lies and deception that masquerade as official dogma. In the wake of Van Jones resignation, Salon asked other signatories of the controversial petition demanding a proper investigation of 9/11, whether they still support the petition.
Here are some of the responses to Salon's question ...
Gray Brechin, historical geographer and visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley's Department of Geography, replied ...
"Until recently, I thought that I (like Van Jones) lived in a country with a First Amendment that permits freedom of speech, thought and petition without fear of reprisal."
Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University; distinguished visiting professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, replied ...
"I would re-sign the 9/11 statement calling for investigation and clarification with respect to the series of questions that have never been satisfactorily answered. To call for an investigation along these lines does not make one a 9/11 'truther' or an endorser of a conspiracy theory. The deliberate blurring of the boundary between questioning the persuasiveness of the official version of 9/11 and the endorsement of an alternative theory of the events that implicates high officials in the Bush presidency seems designed to prevent further inquiry. Citizens in a democratic society deserve to know the truth, and to seek the truth in matters of such fundamental national importance should be treated as an expression of patriotic duty rather than the reverse."
Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University, replied ...
"Yes, if I had it to do over again, I would sign that statement readily, since the questions that it raises are not just legitimate but terribly important -- and they have not been answered credibly. The fact that such a statement should be controversial at all has less to do with what it says than with the great taboo that still inhibits rational discussion of the evidence. First of all, the statement asks for a new inquiry into 9/11. That is hardly an insane demand, considering the many obstacles and limitations that prevented the 9/11 Commission from doing a proper job."
Douglas Sturm, professor emeritus of religion and political science, Bucknell University, replied ...
"In direct response to your query, I in no way repudiate my action signing the 9/11 statement. It stands as an appeal to investigate closely and carefully a series of questions about that tragic event that have yet to receive fully satisfactory answers."
Burns H. Weston, professor emeritus, University of Iowa law school, replied ...
"Yes, I would do it all over again. It is my position that too many critical questions have not yet been officially answered, if even investigated, and that, therefore, the jury is still out on the complete truth of 9/11."
No comments:
Post a Comment