First of all, this is the Paul Street referred to here. He is fancied by many as the heir to Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.
On June 19, 2014, my Facebook (FB) friend, Joe Ortiz, a fellow 9/11 Truther and anti-neocon/Zionist, sent a group FB message pointing to http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/. I responded with the following:
I was blocked yesterday by Paul Street (https://www.facebook.com/paul.street.56) for pointing the 9/11-Truth deniers on his FB post to that site (https://www.facebook.com/paul.street.56/posts/10152048958831525?comment_id=10152050499336525) and then replying to some ridiculous replies. I'm planning to blog about it. I had already blogged my first comment: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2014/06/18/no-serious-academics-are-truthers-hogwash.html [That's Part 1]
So, this is that planned blog post.
I find it amazing that so many people on the left know about all the lies in the lead-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They know about the dragnet illegal spying on all American citizens inside the US by the Bush administration and then the Obama administration. They know about the willingness of thousands and even millions to keep the secrets.
Look at Ted Rall's recent post (I'm not saying I necessarily agree with every last thing Ted said, but the point about the 6,000 keeping a non-secret a secret is still valid here.): "Ted Rall: I Know a Secret [exclusive]." Ted makes clear that 6,000 self-styled journalists willingly cooperated with the CIA in censoring the name of the former CIA Station Chief for Afghanistan while even the Wikipedia names him albeit with a question mark. It is on many sites on the Internet. Cryptome may have been the first. Right now, Cryptome renders the following:
404: Page not found
This error is generated when there was no web page with the name you specified at the web site.
What did it say? You may go here and enter "http://cryptome.org/2012/01/cia-kabul-cos.htm" and return. Why am I doing it that way? Well, there's a law about not revealing the identity of CIA agents. Of course, Valerie Plame was an agent who's identity as such was revealed while she was still active. We weren't all afraid to post her name in that regard. What makes now different? Barack Obama has been even worse than George W. Bush about going after "leakers" even when the information leaked indicates US war crimes. Think then Bradley Manning.
The left knows about all sorts of lies told by US administrations. The list is nearly endless. However, when it comes to 9/11, so many of them freeze as deer in headlights so often have.
Here's my original comment:
It isn't that 9/11 is the root but the root of 9/11. [In response to the statement: "The root cause of everything wrong in America today is the false flag event of 9/11/2001."]
9/11 happened on the neocons' watch. The left is split unevenly on the issue. Many leftists are also Zionists. Are there non-Zionist neocons?
The NIST Report is the official version of WTC7 coming down. It attempted to supply a theory based upon evidence for why and how the building fell. As for that, I suggest you read "Researchers Find Flaws in NIST’s WTC7 Theory": http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/I don't know exactly who knew what and when, but I'm convinced that many highly placed neocons knew a great deal.
As for the libertarians, I'm not one of them; but I know many of them say many correct things concerning various governmental operations and projects down through the centuries, which operations and projects show a clear pattern of lying on a massive scale.
Decent people of the left are pro-good government, as they see it. How much cognitive dissonance goes on concerning just how bad the US government can be?
Coming full circle, is the "Jewish" issue the issue? It shouldn't be. We should be able to separate Jews from Zionists.
I don't think Jews of the left should fear 9/11 at all but rather embrace it, those parts that clearly stand up, which the scientistsfor911truth.org piece appears to do and certainly vastly better than the NIST's efforts/false propaganda.
"... no serious academics are Truthers ...." Hogwash!
Here's Paul Street's incredibly weak response:
The 9/11 truther thing for me is.....well, it's a disease that sucks the life out of people's critical faculties and renders them intellectually and politically useless. One thing Doug Henwood said that I agreed with is that he could have a more intelligent discussion with a tomato plant than with a 9/11 truther. That's been my experience, 100%. Sorry. For me, except in some rare cases, its a relationship-ender, a foul odor I can't be around. I hear someone get "truthy" and its like they've put up a giant neon sign saying "I am a Fool, do not take me seriously." (And I've been through all the imagined scenarios). In that sense, it's kind of like the person who has a peace sign on one side of the back of their car and an Obama sticker on the other. For me, it just goes into the category of "do not take seriously, do not engage.Ignore.
As you may readily see, Paul Street does ignore the valid points raised in the scientistsfor911truth.org piece. Paul just accepts the government's official version on 9/11 even while he condemns that same government for lying concerning a whole host of other issues. Exactly what's the difference between all those other issues and this one issue of 9/11?
Matthew Gosse is the one who originally posted the statement "... no serious academics are Truthers ...." He replied with the following:
As I said, I have sent more than a decade poring over the evidence, so I am more than familiar with the various appeals to authority of the Truther cult (Architect and Engineers for 9/11 Truth/Scientists for 9/11 Truth/Guys In Academic-Looking Suits for 9/11 Truth). I said, "no serious academics are Truthers" not "no one with a university degree ". I have yet to come across a single "academic" Truther that can be taken seriously. First of all, I cannot think of a single one who arrived at the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job via the scientific method. Of the ones I have heard speak of how they were convinced that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition, every last one of them mentions having "watched a video" online. Niels Harrit is one such Truther, who became convinced watching a Truther video on WTC7 online and then went about making science fit his beliefs. He and his merry band of wing-nuts (the core of the group is incredibly small considering the sheer number of people with similar expertise and education - Steven Jones - who also believes he proved that Jesus was in the Americas before Columbus, and several of his students at Bringham Young - comprise a sizeable chunk of the grouping, which also - inexplicably - features academics with wholly unrelated degrees in geology and psychology), did some poor science (no controls, tainted samples, unscientific bias leading them to their findings) and invented "superthermite" out of thin air. When asked how much it would take to destroy the buildings he answered "100 tons". When asked how anyone could get 100 tons of this material into the World Trade Center he resorted to saying that the onus was not on them to explain how. (for the record: it would be difficult to smuggle a hundred tons of anything into an abandoned building). I do not take these people seriously. I do not automatically afford people respect for being in possession of a degree. Also, much of those "expert" websites are padding (as I said, there is a very small active core) of either people who casually endorse the idea of an independent investigation, or people whose education or profession makes them no more an authority on the subject than a street busker. One signatory from an "engineer" was of drainage ditch engineer fresh out of high school. Many others are simply people with thirty and forty year old architecture degrees. Architecture students are often more art student than engineer - having an architecture degree does not mean that you have a working knowledge of physics or building collapse. It also bears mentioning that many (if not most) of the signatories also came to their conclusions watching Alex Jones videos (several of them listing their favourite conspiracy videos in the comments sections), and not by the scientific method. Just an example: when I googled the academic pictured above with your link, one of the only works that came up was this Amazon review: http://www.amazon.com/review/R30129EHPVV1IW. Sad isn't it, that the Truther academics can be found only on Truther websites or hyping each other's books on Amazon, giving them glowing FIVE STAR REVIEWS (note that 28 of 32 reviews of that book are Five Star Reviews by Truthers). So yes, there are academics who support 9/11 Truth just as there are academics (even ones with PhDs) who deny climate change or support creationism. I do not take them seriously either. It also worth keeping in mind that Truthers only respect "expert opinion" when it supports their cause and have been more than willing to ignore out of hand the overwhelming scientific consensus. Do they approach this as they would any other matter of peer review? No, they cast aspersions and declare those they disagree with as agents of the state (even going as denouncing Popular Mechanics' Ben Chertoff for having the same family name as Michael Chertoff) or a part of the grand (ever-expanding) conspiracy. Unlike many Truthers I admit that I have no scientific expertise. I cannot debate the physics of collapse in scientific terms (though I know enough of physics that I can reject the lunacy that these PhDs put forth. This image is embedded in Niels Harrit's own website with the caption "Why didn't the WTCs look like this after the jets hit them?" http://aneta.org/911Experiments_com/WTC/WTC1&2ShouldHaveBeen.jpg - one of the great scientific minds of Trutherdom honestly believes that the top of the tower should have fallen straight down and rested on the next undamaged floor like a Jenga piece. Need I say more?) ....but I am a student of history and politics and know enough to discount the outlandish claims that stem from their dubious and incredible starting point.
That was one of two comments he made. I don't have the other because FB didn't email it to me.
You will note that Gosse also did not address the points in the scientistsfor911truth.org piece.
I do recall that Gosse's other comment went on for some length attempting to establish that WTC7 is some last-ditch effort by a failed 9/11 Truth Movement. To that I say, WTC7 was the point at which I became a 9/11 Truther in that I arrived not just at truth seeking, which had begun in earnest rather than mere curiosity with Gore Vidal's writings on the war games, but at being convinced that there was and remains a deep-state cover-up concerning 9/11.
I responded to both Street and Gosse with the following:
You guys go on and on and on but just ignore the actual NIST claim about WTC7 and its obvious huge "oversights." The NIST experts are by your lights vastly more capable and intelligent than the people who correctly pointed out those "experts" glaring mistakes. The NIST report on WTC7 purported to demonstrate how the building fell with zero resistance. However, they left out the structural components that ruin their explanation; but that doesn't fit with your preconceived view.
The number of logical fallacies in your lengthy statements is amazing. Most importantly, it is completely irrelevant who points out the NIST errors if those errors are real. They're real. I say that without agreeing with you that everyone who is a member of the architects or engineers or scientists for 9/11 truth is a moron or ignoramus (even as you seem to think so, in his or her own field).
The NIST has not given even a remotely satisfactory explanation for how WTC7 came down the way it did.
You are making light of a controlled-demolition expert seeing the video and before knowing that it was WTC7 on 9/11, saying that it was an expertly done controlled demolition. Just dismissing his statement doesn't render his observation meaningless or worthless. When I saw it, I thought exactly the same thing. Why didn't you? Had you not watched controlled demolitions before. I'd seen many.
Due to the way it fell nearly straight down and without resistance and with a sonic record resembling explosions for controlled demolitions, the building appears to have not come down merely from the debris that hit it and/or the few office fires. How do you explain it? If you don't want to discuss 9/11, don't.
I'm not saying that the al Qaeda types, the Wahhabists, didn't, or don't still, hate America. "Freedoms" isn't how I'd characterize it, but I can see how from the perspective of many Americans, it would translate into freedoms. We certainly are generally more at liberty than those living under sharia. They hate that, though I think many people mistake it for envy.
As for cutting people off, I've posted several comments on Libertarian videos today pointing out their mistakes and in direct defense of Progressivism. One was defending the refugee children from Central America (INFOWARS/Alex Jones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEEXGInmVZ8). Another was shooting down the Austrian School view of the New Deal and the military Keynesianism of WWII (not that I'm for military Keynesianism but that the spending did put people to work earning). That one was a video by James Corbett: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa4LRo9L-Dg. I do that sort of commenting regularly.
If you don't want to have any influence on them, that's your choice. I don't think that's bright. I'm not going to change their whole movement overnight, but I have made a difference. I've seen it first hand with many of them.
Oh, let me add that my introduction to 9/11 Truth was by way of Gore Vidal, hardly a reactionary. His writings about all the war games on 9/11 pique my interest, and why not. I was an adult when the Pentagon Papers were released. I remembered COINTELPRO and the Church Committee and on and on.
Just trust that no part of the US government had a hand in 9/11 at all? James Clapper isn't a liar either, and there have been thousands of Edward Snowdens because, after all, with so many who knew, look at how many came out with what Snowden said. Sure, sure.
At that point, Paul Street probably blocked me on FB and added a comment that I'm too stupid to interact with him. Paul simply copped out. That's all.
If you know him and haven't been blocked by him for not buying the official US intelligence community version of 9/11 and don't mind ruffling Paul's feathers, you can let him know I said so. Paul is a good reason so many people distrust so many Marxists.
Let me close by saying that I see nothing wrong with anyone censoring or blocking others who go on and on and on refusing to stop when asked and even though it has become clear that neither side is moving and they've arrived at redundancy. In no way had I reached that point with my two comments. I couldn't care less what Paul Street thinks except that others might buy his intellectually indefensible position and not want 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated and openly reported (things that contrary to the false claims of many leftists and neocons, never happened).
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)