William Blum finally comes out for 9/11 Truth - Mostly
William Blum has finally taken a stand on 9/11 Truth after years of avoiding the issue. He agrees on the one hand that "the buildings in New York collapsed essentially because of a controlled demolition, which employed explosives as well as certain incendiary substances found in the rubble", but then almost in the same breath he puts himself firmly in the LIHOP camp and asserts that it is not reasonable believe that "the government planned it all down to the last detail". He seems take the position that it was both LIHOP and MIHOP - "the government...discovered the plotting of Mideast terrorists some time before and decided to let it happen — and even enhance the destruction — to make use of it as a justification for its 'War on Terror.'”
Although he clearly has some work to do as far as ironing out his problematic logic accepting the controlled demolition of the WTC while still maintaining a LIHOP position, he's at least way more courageous than most of the "alternative" left gatekeepers on the issue.
The 9/11 Truth Movement
The Anti-Empire Report
by William Blum
October 2, 2010
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/02/the-911-truth-movement
The Truthers have long been pressing me to express my support for their cause. Here’s how I stand on the issue. I’m very aware of the serious contradictions and apparent lies in the Official Government Version (OGV) of what happened on that fateful day. (Before the Truthers can be dismissed as “conspiracy theorists”, it should be noted that the OGV is literally a “conspiracy theory” about the fantastic things that a certain 19 men conspired to do.) It does appear that the buildings in New York collapsed essentially because of a controlled demolition, which employed explosives as well as certain incendiary substances found in the rubble. So, for this and many other questions raised by the 9/11 Truth Movement, the OGV can clearly not be taken entirely at face value but has to be seriously examined point by point. But no matter what the discrepancies in the OGV, does it necessarily follow that the events of 9/11 were an “inside job”? Is it an either/or matter? Either a group of terrorists were fully responsible or the government planned it all down to the last detail?
What if the government, with its omnipresent eyes and ears, discovered the plotting of Mideast terrorists some time before and decided to let it happen — and even enhance the destruction — to make use of it as a justification for its “War on Terror”? The Truthers admit that they can’t fully explain what actually took place, but they argue that they are not obliged to do so; that they have exposed the government lies and that the fact of these lies proves that it was an inside job. The Truthers have done great work, but I say that for me, and I’m sure for many others, to accept the idea of an inside job I have to indeed know what actually took place, or at least a lot more than I know now. It is, after all, an incredible story, and I need to know how the government pulled it off. I need to have certain questions answered, amongst which are the following:
1. Were the planes that hit the towers hijacked?
2. Did they contain the passengers named amongst the dead?
3. Were they piloted or were they flying via remote control?
4. If piloted, who were the pilots?
5. Did a plane crash in Pennsylvania? If so, why? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
6. Did a plane crash into the Pentagon? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
7. Why do Truthers say that some, or many, of the named Arabic hijackers have been found alive living abroad? Why couldn’t their identity have been stolen by the hijackers?
If the Truthers can’t answer any or most of the above questions, are they prepared to consider the possibility of 9/11 being a “let-it-happen” government operation?
- Keenan's blog
- Login to post comments
Ah, the old false dichotomy
Ah, the old false dichotomy of "the government" and/or "muslim terrorists" being the culprits. Some(key word Mr. Blum) people within the government/intelligence community/military? Absolutely, as well as some people outside of that structure. And even as he admits the evidence is compelling he still has to believe that-"middle eastern terrorists" were involved on some level above just patsies/fall guys. Yeah, he has a ways to go yet.
Take his last point-"the hijackers"-meaning the muslim patsies were the ones who stole the identities, not the true culprits who were pulling the patsies strings and telling them were to go. 9/11 was an inside/outside job done not by "islamic jihadis" but by Americans and Israelis. Blum shows just how difficult it is for some people to get past the "scary muslim boogeymen HAD to be involved on some level!" bit. Even if some others were involved, those dastardly muslims still want to kill us all!!! Anyway, even if you insist on believing that it started as a "muslim plot"(a ridiculous notion imho) doesn't "enhancing the destruction" rise to the level of active participation and thus an "inside job"?
well said
Yea, I just don't understand Blum's logic in implying that the government "enhancing the destruction" (which I presume mainly refers to the controlled demolition of the 3 WTC towers, which was the cause of about 90% of the deaths that day) can be anything other than "inside job" or MIHOP which he then says he refuses to seriously consider as a possibility until truthers can provide all the answers with absolute proof about everything that happened that day.
It's like what Allen Jasson said when he used the JFK "magic bullet" metaphor to point out how illogical Blum was being in his article below, "Skeptics for 9-11 Truth - Response to William Blum":
“I am so reluctant to believe that my government is so criminally corrupt as to kill its own citizens that unless you can prove to me beyond doubt that there were assassins on the grassy knoll as part of a military style crossfire assault I am prepared to believe the absurd explanation of a ‘magic bullet’”.
You can reword that phrase for 9/11 as follows:
"I am so reluctant to believe that my government is so criminally corrupt as to kill its own citizens that unless you can prove to me beyond doubt that there were no hijackers on board and that human hijackers couldn't hypothetically have taken over these sophisticated airliners, and that the planes were swapped with drones, and what exact remote control technology was employed, and that a plane didn't go down near Shanksville, PA, and that a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, etc., then I am prepared to believe the utterly debunked and impossible and ridiculous notion that we were really attacked by Arab Muslims who really did magically outsmart the world's most sophisticated air defenses and really did perform aeronautical feats that even most experienced pilots wouldn't have likely been able to accomplish on a first try, and that would have exposed the government perpetrators who rigged the WTC with explosives if they made any mistakes flying the planes and missed one of their targets"
And Yesterday from Blum: Jon
And Yesterday from Blum:
Jon Stewart and the Left
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26739.htm
Also two articles by Paul Craig Roberts yesterday
Who Has The Crystal Ball?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26737.htm
Might Is Right
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26740.htm
.....Not so explicitly 911 truth, Although PCR has been thereabouts for a while, but maybe these articles are looking in the right direction?
Also, in spite of the 'scoop' on 911 blogger that John Pilger comes out for 911 truth this week, he has always been asking 911 questions since 2004. Unfortunately he is still a bit lihoppy on the issue for 2010 but at least he called for the revolution to start yesterday:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26743.htm
seems to me that one or two journalists are getting a little bolder in the last couple of weeks?
"seems to me that one or two
"seems to me that one or two journalists are getting a little bolder in the last couple of weeks?"
I would have to agree. It feels like the tide is turning and our numbers (of real truth advocates) just keeps getting bigger.
Cant quite get my head
Cant quite get my head around this article by Blum.
He seems to be genuinely interested, but it is a bit of an expensive shopping list he requires before he (and others) will accept inside job.
I dont know why pyroclastic flows dont prove it alone , let alone the thousand other pieces of evidence for CD and coverup. Why do these arbitary (and possibly currently unexplainable without proper investigation) details have to be explained before the game changes?
We can suggest plausible hypothetical answers for these questions but will be unlikely to 'prove' the hypotheses
if that is his prerequisite to truth.
If he seriously is interested in these questions, and happens to be dropping by I would suggest as far as the remote control info the best I have seen is by Aidan Monaghan on 911Blogger (Cant find any links now as 911 blogger site seems to be down)
One thing is for sure though. Despite 911 blogger always saying (& Yet again in response to this Blum article the last week) 'Lihop=mihop because they are both crimes' is crap!
Arguing with Jon Gold and Loose Nuke for a month (before being banned from blogger) they would surprisingly never answer my direct question to them on the issue, which was that if you promote Lihop is there not a chance that you are putting some people off 911 truth through 'fog of war' logic?, and if evidence existed that was as conclusive, and yet more 'motivational' (That the inside job aspect was undeniable)then why not promote/amplify that instead?
BTW when I say Inside job I mean some combination of parties who MIHOP and covered it up including at least some elements of the Us Gov
"Skeptics for 9-11 Truth - Response to William Blum"
Tuesday, 12 October 2010 13:07
By Allen L. Jasson
http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/5842-sceptics-for-9-11-truth.html
Introduction
In a previous article I have discussed why the 9-11 truth Movement has clearly won the fight (Why 9-11 Truth Has Won). For a time it looked as if it would all go the way of the Kennedy Assassination; the nation afraid to know the truth and a good many powerful people happy to see it kept from them. But the 9-11 issue has implications and public interest much wider than the United States and 9-11 Truth has persisted and grown its numbers. There is still a long way to go but the way is now clear and success is now inevitable, for one very good reason; unlike the Kennedy Assassination there are solid, indisputable facts that completely expose the falsehood of the official explanation. But despite controlled demolition of the official conspiracy theory there are many sceptics who remain doubtful.
The Scepticism of William Blum
One of the most reasoning and articulate of them is William Blum, author of Killing Hope and Rogue State who expressed his doubts in a set of specific points that he felt the 9-11 Truth Movement needed to explain.
Blum is an exceptional thinker, one of those who can reason unaffected by the assumptions and intellectual climate of his cultural context (Thinking “Outside the Box” as the corporate jargon is fond of putting it). In consequence of this he abandoned a career in the state department and instead, catalogued the many interventions by his government in the affairs of other countries, undermining “freedom and democracy” around the world; a veritable “rogue state” obsessed with extinguishing a perceived “communist threat” and killing the hopes of ordinary, or even exceptional people, of finding a human-oriented social and economic order free of both capitalist exploitation and totalitarian domination.
In preparing the ground for expressing his doubts Blum acknowledges the absurdity of the official conspiracy theory and that “The Truthers have done great work”. He goes on to reason much as Ahmadinejad attempted to reason with the wailing wall of the UN – that there are three popular theories about 9-11 – the official theory (which he did not mention is now debunked on the basis of verifiable, irrefutable science), the ‘government did it’ theory and ‘the government let it happen’ theory.
Before going on, it must be said that there is a logical flaw in Blum’s reasoning. Proving controlled demolition is all that is needed to debunk the official conspiracy theory. It doesn’t commit the 9-11 Truth Movement to the assertion of an “inside job” (though obviously, most believe that is the case) and certainly not exclusively to the ‘government did it’ theory. It therefore doesn’t follow that it’s up to the 9-11 Truth Movement to prove, or even explain, “how the government pulled it off”. Debunking the official conspiracy theory provides more than reasonable grounds for demanding a new investigation. That is all that is necessary. There must be a new investigation.
But Blum goes on to make the incorrect assertion that “the government lies and the fact of these lies proves that it was an inside job”. Not only is this a flawed argument but also it is neither a generally accepted assertion of the 9-11 Truth Movement, nor should it necessarily be. This is something to be ascertained by a new investigation, which needs to determine how and by whom a clandestine, controlled demolition was achieved. The rest should follow.
Nevertheless, while acknowledging that “they are not obliged to do so” Blum further asserts that “for me, and I’m sure for many others, to accept the idea of an inside job I need to know what actually took place”, or in other words to “fully explain what actually took place”. If that is what Blum and others want then they should put their weight behind the 9-11 Truth Movement to demand a new investigation.
While as mentioned before, Blum is one of those “outside the box” thinkers, this is nevertheless, the same kind of thinking that plagued the “inside job” argument of the Kennedy Assassination which goes something like this: “I am so reluctant to believe that my government is so criminally corrupt as to kill its own citizens that unless you can prove to me beyond doubt that there were assassins on the grassy knoll as part of a military style crossfire assault I am prepared to believe the absurd explanation of a ‘magic bullet’”. This is hard to believe from someone like Blum (which only emphasises the power of the processes of intellectual containment in the US) but it follows logically from his assertion that explaining the things he and others “need to know” is a prerequisite “to accept the idea of an inside job”, which has hitherto been the real foundation of the corporate mainstream media’s “conspiracy theory” chant.
So Blum goes on to list the questions he needs answered (discussed below).
Some Suggestions for the Sceptics
Focus on the now proven controlled definition.
In examining what logically flows from the premise of controlled demolition there is a lot to consider, all of which should serve as guide to the new investigation for the discovery of new information, alongside the work of verification of existing information to establish and of course, to analyse the facts about what happened.
For example, on the question of government involvement, the government’s behaviour in relation to the inquiry and the proffering of such an inadequate report strongly suggests a cover-up, although it does not prove it was an “inside job”. The inquiry itself needs to be investigated as part of a new investigation. But there are many other issues that imply, though not prove, some sort of government involvement and which need to be examined:
* The failure of national air security to intercept the hijacked planes,
* The alleged shutdown of a CIA investigation that had identified the hijackers and their intentions long before 9-11
* The alleged FIMA exercise at WTC on 9-10
* The alleged internal warnings not to fly that day
* The implications of the PNAC document
* The connection with the head of Pakistani Secret Services
* The connections with the Bin Laden family.
* What was on the videos taken from the Pentagon and environs?
* Why was the debris whisked away to China?
* How did 9-11 so quickly translate to a war in Afghanistan?
But there are other lines of investigation that can be pursued to establish who was involved and how, for example:
* How did the explosives get into the WTC towers and placed for demolition?
* Who was involved in the insider trading on Airline shares?
* Why was Building 7 “pulled”
The other guide to the investigation should be the obvious “Who benefits?”
At least in the case of the WTC towers there were obviously planes involved (despite lunatic fringe assertions they were holograms – what the movement has had to overcome!). Ascertaining if these were actual hijackings or remote controlled frauds should be a straightforward if arduous business of ascertaining passenger lists and following up on each passenger. This should be done for all of the flights and passengers involved.
The fact that actual planes hit the WTC buildings and a real hijacking appears to have been involved doesn’t necessitate that a hijacked plane hit the Pentagon. Evidence suggesting that this was a missile strike is not necessarily inconsistent. For example, the actual attack planned by the terrorists may have intended only to strike the WTC but their plan was both enabled and enhanced not only by ensuring collapse of the WTC towers but also by the mocking up of attacks on the Pentagon and White House.
In such circumstances the intended White House attack could have been anything between a thwarted real terrorist attack and a complete fabrication. All of the questions posed by Blum can be answered speculatively in terms of a “government let it happen” theory, which Blum seems to favour:
1. Were the planes that hit the towers hijacked?
Pilot error seems improbable. The only plausible alternative is that they were drones. Whatever hit the towers they collapsed as a result of the collision but of controlled demolition
2. Did they contain the passengers named amongst the dead?
This is something that should be easily confirmed, it’s just a matter of passenger lists, birth certificates, death certificates and verifying real people..
3. Were they piloted or were they flying via remote control?
Open – subject to investigation
4. If piloted, who were the pilots?
”The hijackers” seems the likely answer, but Blum clearly means that the hijackers should be specifically identified. Who would disagree? Presently it’s a government manufactured fiction – subject to investigation
5. Did a plane crash in Pennsylvania? If so, why? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
The alleged intended attack on the White House may have been a thwarted real hijacking or a complete fiction – passenger list verification is a good place to start investigating this and can be established conclusively
6. Did a plane crash into the Pentagon? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
There will be clear answers to this question on the video footage currently held by the government. Surely these need to be made public.
7. Why do Truthers say that some, or many, of the named Arabic hijackers have been found alive living abroad? Why couldn’t their identity have been stolen by the hijackers?
The BBC has reported that some of the alleged hijackers are alive and well and very amused – not the “Truthers”. Not all “Truthers” have drawn the same conclusions about this. Regardless of anyone’s conclusions, surely this also, needs to be investigated. It only adds to the case for asserting demands for a new investigation – the controlled demolition proves the official theory false.
A Solid Conclusion
The key task of the 9-11 Truth Movement has already reached a solid conclusion. There are now substantial grounds to demand a new investigation of 9-11 and the public demand for it both international and within the US is growing rapidly.
The key questions regarding the who and how of controlled demolition, the obvious shortcomings of the original investigation and the established body of other evidence that has been accumulated point the way for the new investigation which, in turn must also be carried to an acceptable, solid conclusion.
Based on this event an administration led by a president with a very dubious mandate, shockingly poor statesmanship and even questionable intelligence made a hasty decision to go to war. The attack on Afghanistan, displacing the government of a sovereign state in an act contrary to international law resulted in thousands of deaths on both sides, most of them innocent Afghan civilians and is ongoing with Afghans engaged in a genuine and legitimate fight for their freedom. The Afghan government allegedly refused to hand over Usama bin-Laden but in fact, they made several offers to hand him over (at least one of them on the public record) if evidence could be provided of his guilt – none was provided. To this day the FBI concedes there is no solid evidence of bin-Laden’s involvement, which in itself is an outrage. Objection to the war was worldwide and intense, even at the time and persists to the present day, even more widespread and intense. There is a widely held belief that the war was initiated for reasons of empire having nothing to do with terrorism and the evidence for this global conviction has grown significantly.
The illegal, aggressive war in Iraq has destroyed a nation and ended or ruined millions of lives. The reasons for it were an obvious fraud and the clearly unfounded association of Saddam Hussein with Usama bin-Laden only intensifies suspicions regarding the way that the US administration cynically exploited the 9-11 event for its imperialist ambitions.
We have been dragged back to the insane and barbaric religious wars of the Middle Ages as if nothing has advanced in human civilisation other than our technological capacity to kill each other. We have inflamed hatred and religious fanaticism at a time when reason, mutual trust and cooperation are essential if we are to find rational solutions to our critically urgent environmental, over-population and over-consumption problems. Far from addressing these problems we may find ourselves embroiled in a century of bitter conflict with deranged religious fanatics (such as the Pope and his direct return to centuries old insults to Islam) being used as cover for the psychopaths who own western capitalism to engage in resource plunder.
Re-examining 9-11 with integrity and a will to find the truth, and to address all that has arisen from that event in the same spirit, offers a hope that we may undo at least some of the damage, change course and bring this era of sinister Machiavellian approach to world affairs to a solid conclusion.
Humanity urgently needs a focus and resolve that is unprecedented and improbable, if we are to realise that one hope. Exposing the truth about 9-11 and applying the law to the many people involved in that event and the illegal wars and many war crimes that flowed from it is the path we need to follow.
Sceptics for 9-11 Truth like William Blum need to start “coming out”.
Aaaand LIHOP fake extraordinaire Julian Ware rushes in...
with the first comment to William Blum's article in a transparent attempt to steer Blum safely towards the false opposition, in which Julian actually attempts, LOL! to claim that even LIHOP could be considered going too far for some people:
Probably the funniest statement in Julian's stinking pile of LIHOP CRAP is the following:
Actually, by far the most hilarious line was this little gem:
And not following very far behind, one of our other favorite full-time professional disinfo fakes - Jon Gold - manages to quickly jump in with the 3rd comment.
But in a clear sign that the Real Truth Movement is winning and that the tiny and shrinking LIHOP brigade's prospects continue to fall faster than a steel framed high-rise building being demolished with explosives, the real truther comments inevitably outnumber and deal a knock-out blow to these LIHOP fakes' false logic and unconvincing and worn out disinformation.
_________________________
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/02/the-911-truth-movement/co...
Julian Ware
October 2, 2010 - 5:50 am
Mr. Blum,
I greatly appreciate your support for 9/11 truth. However, I’d like to point out a few things that your statement above indicate to me, being a longtime and fairly rational participant in the 9/11 truth movement. If I seem terse, it’s due to the respect I have for your body of work in contrast to the apparent lack of focus you demonstrate here.
A) With all due respect, your statement above indicates to me that you’ve read very little about 9/11 truth. I recommend starting with the History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline.
B) Your statement would indicate to most mainstream folks that you yourself are a “truther” as you go further in what you consider common sense conclusions than many in the 9/11 truth movement. That support is brave and highly appreciated, although I’d recommend further inquiry.
C) You appear unaware that some significant minority of those promoting 9/11 truth espouse no conspiracy theories whatsoever, and may not go even so far as to suggest that they “let it happen,” a view that sets you squarely in support of the cause. Many simply want a new investigation to determine what happened.
D) The questions you pose aren’t all that relevant.
- Of course the planes were hijacked.
- Of course the listed passengers died on the planes.
- Remote control is useless speculation
- The pilots were the indicated hijackers.
- Yes the Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. However the huge debris field strongly suggests some kind of mid air explosion. It’s not unreasonable, but fairly pointless, to speculate that it was shot down.
- Yes, a plane crashed into the Pentagon. Speculation that it didn’t is some of the most weakly supported speculation to be found in the movement, some of it clearly intended to undermine the movement’s credibility.
- Some ‘truther’s aren’t too bright. It’s fairly clear that some but not all of the hijackers stole identities of people who are still alive.
E) Many people in the movement only go so far as to speculate that elements within our government (Bush had nothing to do with it) let the attack happen. That is the most responsible position for outreach. Unfortunately, many people such as yourself appear to distance themselves from our cause even as they basically agree with the data we promote and our basic conclusions.
F) For those really savvy such as myself, it has become clear that the movement is broadly stigmatized by implying what you have here; that we all think the US government planned and executed the attack on it’s own. That’s not remotely likely and is simply not the opinion of everyone involved in promoting the cause. Perhaps that was not your intent.
G) The movement is both promoted by people with little education or interest in reading and is also very clearly undermined from within by people promoting all sorts of crap. No, the Jews did not “do 9/11.” No, the plane did not fly over the Pentagon. And who knows, maybe the towers just fell that way.
I hope you will actually look a bit further into this issue and I strongly encourage you not to stereotype those promoting it. There are some very educated and politically savvy participants who have no interest in the kind of speculation you have pointed to above.
Thanks again for your support.
yeah, it's a great sign that the fakes are so busy these days
Let me throw in that an "inside job" could mean inside the US government OR inside the management of the WTC (or both). Blum may well be doing this deliberately, expressing feigned sympathy whilst introducing (a la Cass Sunstein's cognitive infiltrators) seeds of doubt in the form of "well wait, if we can't come up with a plausible storyline for exactly who did what then we have no position". Nonsense. Controlled demolition in all its patent obviousness is more than enough to trigger a real OPEN-ENDED (for a change) investigation.
I have my doubts that Blum
I have my doubts that Blum is an honest truther. He may be a controlled inject into the truth movement, the same as Kevin Ryan. While he may be public with some truther narratives, his ultimate play may be to divert truthers to a LIHOP agenda. I'm not sure of this unlike for Ryan which I am more certain of. But there are similarities - high profile coming out for 9-11 truth from an erstwhile establishment connected persona. Idiotic inconsistencies in logic on their narratives is the first giveaway.
I hope I am wrong. But I feel I am right.
i tend to agree
we'll see... either way it's goo dnews--the better real truthers do, the more the cover-up crowd worries and throws out new stumbling blocks...