Truth, the Left, and 9/11 Revisited

There is mental blockage on the left concerning 9/11. It's limited but still quite widespread. More leftists than not, by far, currently echo the neocons' "official" version. Why?

Doug Henwood is a Facebook friend of mine. Doug is highly intelligent and a rather astute political observer, analyst, and commentator. I've found many of his insights concerning Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein and others to be spot on.

Doug, however (as with many, many others on the left), doesn't hold with what is called the 9/11 Truth Movement. Over the years, I've experienced a number of "leftists" unfriending me after calling me various unfriendly names because I argued in favor of 9/11 Truth.

I say "many, many others on the left" rather than "everyone on the left" because there is a contingent of leftists in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

It has troubled me over the years that so many on the left so readily accept the neocon position concerning 9/11 regardless of any and all evidence questioning, and in many cases utterly demolishing, the neocon position.

Here's why I'm posting on it now (which happens to be the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks).

Doug Henwood shared Alexander Cockburn's article, "The 9/11 Conspiracists: Vindicated After All These Years?." The article is from September 2, 2011.

I commented on Doug's share as follows, clearly annoyed, and beginning with a direct quote from Cockburn's article about Cockburn's own conspiracy adoption even in the face of Cockburn pooh-poohing 9/11 Truth:

"Of course there are conspiracies. The allegations that Saddam Hussein had WMD amounted to just such a one. I think there is strong evidence that FDR did have knowledge that a Japanese naval force in the north Pacific was going to launch an attack on Pearl Harbor." But, but, but there can't be any others, I think ... yada yada.

Please! The article is naively arrogant. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" applies.

Just because people who try to pull off conspiracies include stupid people who make mistakes and don't cover everything doesn't mean that some of their attempts don't succeed. Why wasn't Gladio mentioned? There are countless other examples.

Where did he get the info on FDR? I know where he got it. The case lays out a very elaborate conspiracy involving many, many people and that brought down extremely high ranking military personnel in charge of protecting Pearl. How many leaks were there? Actually, none.

Not long after, Bob Love commented with:

I for one am (sort of) pleased that all these under-medicated psychonauts have so many conspiracies theories to extrapolate. Better they spend their lives on the computer than roaming the streets.

That's very typical.

To which I replied:

Bob Love,

Is MKUltra still a theory to you?

I'm just wondering where you draw the lines for yourself, the way Alexander Cockburn drew the line for himself: "...strong evidence that FDR did have knowledge that a Japanese naval force in the north Pacific was going to launch an attack on Pearl Harbor."

Did Cockburn just let his under-medicated psychonautism peek through there in your view?

I, for one, am thrilled that people dig and dig and dig and expose and expose and expose. I'm glad I know about Operation Northwoods and the many, many other real conspiracies planned and others actually executed.

I think anyone who thinks otherwise about those conspiracies is an ignoramus, dumbass, or both. Don't you? There's always the possibility he or she is a PSYOPS agent too. You do believe there is such a thing, right?

Bob has not answered, which doesn't surprise me in the least. He may have other reasons, but direct challenges to those who summarily dismiss 9/11 quite often go completely ignored with those being challenged continuing right on as if no refutation has occurred. Why is that?

Andrew Geller commented:

Such a stupid article, wholly ignorant of so many things. Heat sinks, multiple war games, the sub-basement bank vault destroyed *before* the first plane struck, the mid-air pulverization of millions of tons of previously solid materials, WTC 7, a key last-minute NMCC staffing change, the failure of multiple 'standard operating procedure' systems (civilian and military)...

Andrew's mentioning of "Heat sinks" prompted me to add information concerning the molten metal at the 9/11 site.

9/11 Molten Metal:

All those people reporting the molten metal lied, or they told the truth and the molten metal is proof of something beyond the jets, the jet-fuel and directly resulting fires, and any "pancaking" of the building floors where the jets (and fuel fires) were the proximate cause (nothing else, no planned demolition involved).

The molten-metal "debunkers" never agree that there was all that molten metal and then offer rational and reasonable explanations for its existence. They always only dance around it. It doesn't seem to matter to them that the molten metal was not covered in the official Commission Report either.

This source is well-documented and well-written and fully supports/substantiates my contentions, which I arrived at independently long before reading the source:

Why would anyone in his or her right mind believe all those people reporting all that molten metal lied? Would it be mostly cognitive dissonance or are they just that loath to believe anything that plenty of "libertarian" types believe?

Can't the truth be something that both many on the left and many libertarians believe at the same time? Why is 9/11 so different from anti-war beliefs?

Is it because of the difference on the subject of "limited government," where many on the left don't believe government is inherently more dangerous than private enterprise but rather believe "big government" can be good government (if properly reformed/designed)?

So, you read there my questions concerning the left and 9/11 Truth.

I started this post by saying:

There is mental blockage on the left concerning 9/11. It's limited but still quite widespread. More leftists than not, by far, currently echo the neocons' "official" version. Why?

It's THE question of our time.

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.