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.


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)

  • 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.