Proving Nothing: 9/11 Truth Movement Ignores Reality (Joshua Frank)

[SeveneightyWhoa]

Proving Nothing: 9/11 Truth Movement Ignores Reality

September 15 2006
Counterbias.com
by Joshua Frank


I really have no interest in debunking all the nutty conspiracies revolving around September 11, 2001. I find the exercise about as entertaining as discussing the virgin birth with a Christian fundamentalist. The truth is, it’s is damn near impossible to convince a zealot of their senselessness.

I concede that there are a lot of questions yet to be answered about that dark day five years ago. But of all of the inquiries, none, in my opinion, if answered, would ever indicate the US government was behind the bloody affair. Sad thing is most 9/11 conspiracy theorists, conveniently dubbed the 9/11 Truth Movement, are on par with Bush for the Super-Negligence Award: what they are now propagating will never stop this out-of-control administration or any of our government’s homicidal policies.

With all the banter about the Bushies and the neocons taking down the World Trade Center or flying a missile in to the Pentagon, the Truth Movement seems to willfully ignore that we’ve got real wars going on in the Middle East right now. And most of these battles started well before Bush took office or Bin Laden’s combat teams flew commercial airliners in to the WTC.

Continue.. http://www.counterbias.com/745.html

[dailykoff]

1. Taking a page from the Chomsky playbook. . .

Please don't look behind THAT curtain, folks! Wouldn't you rather worry about rainforests and teenage girls in sweatshops, wink wink?

Frank is just another shill when it comes to 9/11.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Is that the same Joshua Frank who wrote this?

....

The Greens could, and should have been vociferously opposing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they opted for a "smart-growth" (read: safe-state) strategy instead, where they'd stay well below the electoral radar. They should have been on the frontlines of the campaign scene, denouncing John Kerry and George Bush's neoliberalism and their handling of the downward economic spiral, civil liberties infringements, and environmental catastrophes. But instead the Green Party caved, and regardless of what Ted Glick and others claim, they paid a steep price, getting pounded at the polls as a result. A miserable sixth place.

David Cobb and his running mate Pat LaMarche earned a little over 118,000 votes on November 2, 2004. Even though only half a million people voted for Ralph Nader in 2004 -- a drastic decline compared to four years earlier when 2.8 million people voted Green -- Nader still managed to garner five times as many votes as the GP on Election Day '04, despite being vilified by professional leftists, Greens, progressives and bemused Democrats.

With friends like Joshua, some "Democrats" don't need enemies, eh SeveneightyWhoa? Thanks, but no thanks. That guys a nut job.

[greyl]

3. What's wrong with that quote? nt

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Nothing, if you believed diverting votes away from Kerry was a smart move

for removing bush.

Or if you believe there is no difference between Kerry and bush, which is essentially Franks argument.

Then there's nothing wrong with it at all.

Yeah, vote green so we can get some changes done. Smart. That's real analytical of the guy.

[greyl]

7. I can't trust the meaning you're making of it, sorry.

Give us the link you're basing your statement on, because your quote doesn't support it.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. It's in the guy's blog. There's a link to it on the site from the OP.

"They should have been on the frontlines of the campaign scene, denouncing John Kerry and George Bush's neoliberalism and their handling of the downward economic spiral, civil liberties infringements, and environmental catastrophes."

Yeah, it's Kerry's fault.

[Grateful for Hope]

10. I googled him

and found a number of articles of his which slam dems. I think you are right...he is no friend of democrats.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

12. He certainly isn't.

Neither are many in the '9/11 Truth Movement', most of whom happen to identify with the Far Left (not big fans of Democrats).

[Grateful for Hope]

13. Can you substantiate this? n/t

[SeveneightyWhoa]

16. No, I cannot.

And I won't pretend to try. My general impression is that most MIHOP/LIHOP advocates are leftists (not mrerely "liberals"); make no mistake, this could just be a stereotype on my part. Of course there are a lot of conservatives, libertarians, and Democrats on the *IHOP bandwagon, but anti-establishment leftists would probably have a statistical lead population-wise. Do you disagree?

[Grateful for Hope]

17. I don't pretend to know the answer either

but, I don't think that a sincere pursuit of truth is necessarily limited to anti-establishment leftists.

You could be correct, however, that the anti-establishment types would be more likely to question the official story.

Thank you for your reply.

[tenseconds]

18. many

Many are anti-globalists. Tell me one prominent Democrat who isn't a globalist.

[Grateful for Hope]

23. It may be wishful thinking

but, I'd say perhaps Russ Feingold, Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, and John Conyers off the top of my head.

[tenseconds]

29. John Edwards?

John Edwards?

[Grateful for Hope]

30. As I said, may be wishful thinking

I really like John Edwards

[Grateful for Hope]

24. Oops, sorry tenseconds

I replied to your post because I thought it was directed at me. I now see it wasn't.

[greyl]

15. Dems slam Dems.

There's nothing wrong with being critical of particular Democrats.

Can you substantiate your claim?

[greyl]

14. Still, that doesn't support what you're saying.

Thanks for not providing a link, again.

I apologize if asking for evidence is a nuisance, but I can imagine how you may have taken your latest quote out of context, so I can't settle for your unsupported opinion.

[FoxOnTheRun]

20. Both are Skull & Bones and cousins,

but he won't tell you

[Bryan Sacks]

4. I love this paragraph:

I concede that there are a lot of questions yet to be answered about that dark day five years ago. But of all of the inquiries, none, in my opinion, if answered, would ever indicate the US government was behind the bloody affair. Sad thing is most 9/11 conspiracy theorists, conveniently dubbed the 9/11 Truth Movement, are on par with Bush for the Super-Negligence Award: what they are now propagating will never stop this out-of-control administration or any of our government’s homicidal policies

Josh Frank is a smart guy, and I am a Nader supporter from way back. He's written some great essays on Counterpunch appropriately critical of the ABB crowd that treid to elect a walking corpse in 2004. Yet I have to wonder: how powerful must be his sense of progressive entitlement to feel comfortable saying "but of all the inquiries, none, in my opinion, would ever indicate the US government was behind the bloody affair."???

Is he a priest now, making a priori assertions we're supposed to simply accept without his having to even make an argument? Conspiracy theorists must really be the new lepers: you can completely dismiss them out of hand without so much as giving them the most basic courtesy of actually engaging the material on whcih their claims are founded.

Josh, with all due respect, who the fuck cares about your opinion, if it's not earned? Claims for complicity aren't based on opinion - they are based on evidence. Engage the evidence or have the decency to shut up!

The '9/11 truth Movement' is not to blame for the attention to pods, holograms, no planes, etc. The fault is with those who give them attention that is disproportionate to their merit. That would be: the mainstream media, defenders of Bush, and lily-livered liberals who live in fear of their reputations getting stained from their supposed proximity to the conspiracy crowd.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. This guy is a moran. Where did they find him? Oh yeah, At the bottom

"Write for Counterbias! We want writers of all political perspectives and writing ability."
http://www.counterbias.com/articles05q4.html

They apparently got a writer of moranic political perspectives and poor writing abilities. Fills the bill of what they are looking for I guess.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

11. Watch it now.

I run the site (Counterbias).

Josh Frank submits pieces regularly; I refrain from publishing many of them, but felt this one was worthwhile. It's intriguing to see someone from the 'kooky left' taking a stand against the so-called 9/11 truth movement.

I find it offensive that you choose to denigrate both the author, and my website, simply because this particular piece doesn't mesh with your own viewpoint.

[tenseconds]

19. must be

He must be an idiot.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. You are the person looking for writers of all abilities. That would

include low level abilities?

His piece is neither informative or new. It's a rant. I've seen hundreds of practically identical rants from our own neocon language using guardians of the status quo right here on this forum.

It's not very important. Except maybe to him. And you. Thanks for sharing.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

33. "Writers of all abilities" was written when the site first started out.

When there were literally zero contributors.

Obviously that's changed in the past few years, as writing standards have risen and the number of contributions and contributors have increased.

Oh, and you're welcome. :)

[John Q. Citizen]

34. In that case, why run a rehashed rant with no analysis about anything?

All the OCTs (The people who apparently except and promote the Official Conspiracy Theory) want to talk about or discuss is the collapse of the 3 buildings, what hit the Pentagon, and the downing of flight #93.

Almost always ignored are the

Funding of the hijacker suspects
The training of the suspect pilots
The associates of the hijack suspects
The movements of the hijack suspects
How the suspect were able to come and go from the US
The histories of the hijack suspects
The lack of air defense on 9/11
The money in the markets that bet on economic woe for 9/11 related companies and commodities.
The cover up of answers to the above issues.

Wouldn't it be more interesting for your readers to read something other than regurgitated neocon speak? So I don't just blame the author for his idiotic piece, I blame you for publishing it as well. Boring, redone, empty, propaganda sums it up. If that's what your site is about, great.

I'd rather read an interesting piece of well researched investigative journalism like WELCOME TO TERRORLAND -- MOHAMED ATTA & THE 9-11 COVER-UP IN FLORIDA by Daniel Hopsicker, Available for free at http://www.american-buddha.com/911.welcometoterrorlandhopsicker.htm

That's not my site, but it's a lot more interesting on a lot more levels than your site. Just my opinion...

[greyl]

8. What do you think of bermas, rowe, and avery? nt

[Bryan Sacks]

22. I credit them for an incredible marketing achievement, but

'Loose Change' has really muddied the waters. They would have gotten muddy (and were muddy) anyway, but it did not help that LC (both editions) contained obviously false information.

I've never met them that I am aware of, so I cannot comment on them personally.

[AZCat]

26. I think LC and the response to it illustrate the primary schism...

in the 9/11 Truth Movement. LC seems to feel, like many others, that the most important thing is to get the "narrative" into the public's awareness, even if the building blocks of that narrative might not be correctly assembled (or simply erroneous). The other dominant group seems to believe that unless one can construct a narrative from accepted sources the narrative doesn't matter, and focuses their attention on collecting, verifying and organizing the "proper" building blocks of the narrative without worrying too much about a coherent story line.

I think a majority of the posters derided here as "OCTers" are actually members of the second group, although there might be exceptions.

[mhatrw]

21. Lots of unanswered questions, but no chance that the answers

could implicate anyone in the US government.

Where do they get these guys? There seems to be a neverending supply.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Exactly. "We don't know the answers but we know the conclusions

we will draw from the answers we haven't gotten yet."

Brilliant. Provacative. Hard hitting. Not!

[rman]

28. They're out in force like never before

Probably be an attempt at damage control after the path to 911 hoopla.
Feels like deja-vu, going around in circles.

[Grateful for Hope]

31. That deja-vu thing

going around in circles, or perhaps, recycling. I have noticed this too.

[MervinFerd]

32. "damn near impossible to convince a zealot of their senselessness"

As proven by the present thread (and forum).