Project Censored "censored" because of stance on 9/11 Truth!

The Left Gatekeepers Phenomenon


The denial that 9/11/01 was an inside job is nowhere deeper than in the traditional Left and the established Left media. Respected commentators for the Left, such as David Corn of the Nation, pooh-poohed challenges to the official story of the attack, or at most suggested complicity of the Bush administration by pointing to Saudi connections to the Bush family, all while staying within the confines of the official myth of the hijackers, crumbling skyscrapers, etc.

The causes of the Left gatekeeper phenomenon are, no doubt, complex. It may be that, because of their political marginalization, writers on the Left tend to be more defensive about their credibility. Furthermore, many Left publications are dependent on foundation funding, and those relationships may compromise objectivity on conscious and unconscious levels. It is also probable that many left icons are co-opted by covert disinformation programs such as Operation Mockingbird that target the Left media precisely because people expect challenges to the official story to come from that quarter.


Left denial

Researcher Mark Robinowitz devotes much of his vast website to tracking the Left gatekeeper phenomenon. He provides a good summary of the phenomenon of Left denial.


e x c e r p t

title: Denial is not a river in Egypt: 'Not See's,' Nazis and the psychological difficulty in facing
the truth about 9/11

author: Mark Robinowitz


"Both the corporate, mainstream media and most of the foundation-funded "alternative" media have sought to restrict investigative journalism and dissident opinions about the so-called "War on Terror." Since 9/11, the Left media -- including The Nation, Z magazine, The Progressive, Mother Jones, Alternative Radio -- have shied away from examining the pretext for endless war. They have ignored the national "Deception Dollar" campaign, which has printed over three million DD's listing websites of the independent investigations of 911, despite a massive distribution effort across the country, especially at peace rallies.

Worse, several of these institutions have gone on the attack against independent media and journalists who have done excellent work exposing the lies behind the official stories of 9/11. In the spring of 2002, when some of the material documenting official foreknowledge of 9/11 began to surface in the corporate media, The Nation, Z and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting attacked independent investigators who are piecing together the evidence, instead of helping those who have done the best work."

site: www.oilempire.us
page: www.oilempire.us/denial.html


Hypocrisy Now!

One of the most notable cases of Left denial is that of the respected journalist Amy Goodman and her show Democracy Now!. Goodman has long rebuffed requests that she interview an expert on the subject. Instead she has tiptoed around the core facts of the attack and addressed only peripheral issues, such as the EPA's fraudulent assurances that the air in Lower Manhattan was safe to breathe while Ground Zero was still smoldering. Finally, after a concerted campaign by the 9-11 Visibility Project, Goodman featured David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, on her May 26, 2004 show. Goodman pitted Chip Berlet against Griffin, and gave the last word and closing summary to Berlet, who spun the myth that the attack was strictly blowback. Nonetheless, Griffin was allowed to make the case that the attack was an inside job for the first time ever on the nationally syndicated show.

Mark Robinowitz recounts confronting Amy Goodman about her refusal to cover the issue prior to the Griffin interview.


e x c e r p t

title: Amy Goodman's Not-So-Good Coverage of 9/11
author: Mark Robinowitz


"In the fall of 2002, Ms. Goodman spoke in the same room at the University of Oregon during a previous speaking tour. After her speech (which was very similar to her May 2004 speech), I asked her after the event if she would help investigate the recently disclosed story of how the Air Force, CIA, NORAD and National Reconnaissance Office were conducting "war games" similar to 9/11 during the 9/11 "attacks," which were apparently used to confuse the air defense response. She would not reply, and looked at me in apparent fear. It was a particularly strange response considering she had just spoken eloquently about her tremendous courage in reporting on the massacre in East Timor. (The issue of the 9/11 war games on 9/11 has not ever been mentioned on Democracy Now -- and it is likely that if they were, DN would run the risk of losing their foundation funding, which would force them to lay off much of their staff.)"

site: www.oilempire.us
page: www.oilempire.us/democracynow.html


On of the factors behind the reluctance of journalists such as Goodman to give a voice to skeptics of the official 9/11 myth may be their dependence on foundation money.


Cracks in the Wall

Two early exceptions to the Left media's blackout of evidence that the attack was an inside job were the radio shows Guns and Butter and Taking Aim , both of which have prominently featured Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone. These researchers focus on issues of historical precedents and economic and imperial motives pointing to the attack being an inside job or false-flag operation. Guns and Butter also made the historic step in January of 2004 of airing an interview with researcher Jim Hoffman on the physical evidence of the demolition of the World Trade Center, whose transcript is posted on 911research.wtc7.net, a site focusing on physical evidence.

The publication of Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor, appears to have somewhat eroded the Left establishment's taboo against questioning the attack. Among the endorsements printed on the book is one by Professor Howard Zinn, author of the acclaimed A People's History of the United States. The 9-11 Visibility Project also counts Medea Benjamin, Gore Vidal, Jim Hightower, and Ed Asner among the endorsers of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The work of Steven Jones, a physics professor for 20 years who published a draft of Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? in late 2005, appears to have created still more space for progressives to question the official version of events. In an essay in CommonDreams.org , Ernest Partridge highlights several anomalies that undermine the official version, but gives short shrift to evidence that the attack was engineered.


The 2006 Offensive

The year 2006 saw an unprecedented barrage of attacks by trusted left media icons, paralleling a surge in attacks by mainstream media outfits. The surge is almost certainly a response to an growth in the number of people considering challenges to the official story -- an expansion in part fueled by the increased credibility imparted to such challenges by the work of Steven E. Jones.


AlterNet

In July AlterNet.org published The 9/11 Faith Movement by July Terry Allen, of the Independent Media Institute. The article is yet another straw man attack, failing to disclose any strong arguments for insider involvement in the attack while highlighting red-herrings like the Silverstein's "pull-it" comment.


Dissident Voice

In August, Dissident Voice published Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11 by CIA alum Bil Christison. While packaged as a plea to take the "conspiracy theories" about 9/11 seriously, the piece actually appears to be a Trojan horse attack, enthusiastically promoting the Pentagon no-jetliner theory while pairing it with a tepid endorsement of the WTC demolition theory. Christison trots out the usual arguments for the no-jetliner theory, failing to note any of their errors. In contrast, he fails to note any specific arguments for the demolition of the Twin Towers or Building 7.


The Progressive

On the anniversary of the attack, the Progressive published Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already by Matthew Rothschild. Rothschild lauches his attack with sarcasm and ennumerates many positions of "conspiracy theorists" in order to ridicule them, but fails to describe the arguments on which those postions are based. The main argument Rothschild adduces against the theories is the fallacious one that an inside job would necessarily involve a vast conspiracy. Rothschild's attack amounts to little more than a series of fallacies: appeals to prejudice, appeals to authority, guilt by association, and straw man arguments.


Counterpunch

Alexander Cockburn has a longstanding habit of bashing the "conspiracy theorists" in his Counterpunch.org publication. In late 2006 Counterpunch featured a series of three articles by Manuel Garcia, an employee of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, purporting to explain the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Whistleblower Kevin Ryan penned a biting critique of Garcia's articles in Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist. After dismantling Garcia's "physics", Ryan provides insight into the political and psychological forces that are in play.


e x c e r p t

title: Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist
author: Kevin Ryan


"Government scientists get paid to support government policies, particularly in this era of "Bush Science", and clearly Garcia is willing to play along. But why would political news organizations, like Counterpunch, that present themselves as alternatives to the corporate media, promote these false claims?

Consider for a moment the implications of a breakthrough in the truth about 9/11. If the official story about 9/11 is completely false, as it has proven to be, that fact should call into question those media sources who have helped to cover-up the details over the last five years, even if only through gross negligence of the facts. Whether or not collusion with alternative media was involved, if there is a possibility that the neo-cons actually helped in planning or executing the attacks, then the fact that they pulled it off means that Alexander Cockburn and other (ostensibly) liberal leaders might no longer enjoy the "irreverent and biting" superiority that they identify themselves with. It could be very distressing for some of these rebel leaders to realize that instead of "muckraking with a radical attitude" they have spent years meekly bolstering the status quo.

It appears that these kinds of realizations are inevitable, and actually offer us a chance to improve our situation. In the US, we'll soon have more opportunity to notice the default states in which we are expected to accept scientific authority no matter how illogical, and accept a cartoonish political framework no matter how impotent. In the next few months, these opportunities will come like "hot volleys" from Manuel Garcia, providing stark examples of how pretentious "experts", and other types of fictitious, homogenized (ironcrete) leaders give no real alternatives to the problems we've seen in the last five years."

site: 911Review.com
page: 911Review.com/articles/ryan/garcia.html


The Psychology of Denial

The reasons for the intense denial about the 9/11/01 attack inside the Left establishment appear to go much deeper than the fact that many of its institutions are funded by endowments like those of the Ford Foundation. The official myth appeals to political philosophies that condemn U.S. imperialism by providing the supreme example of "blowback" -- the proverbial chickens coming home to roost. Researcher August West speaks to this and other psychological underpinnings of the denial.


e x c e r p t

title: Left Denial on 9/11
author: August West


"Denial lies at the heart of this unusual Left reaction. Many activists have looked at the questions, thought about the answers for a bit, and retreated in horror in the face of implications. If the government had foreknowledge and let the attacks happen, or worse, actually took part in facilitating them, then the American state is far more vicious than they could have imagined. And if so, what would happen to them should they vocalize this? Needless to say, this would greatly raise the stakes of political action well beyond the relatively superficial level that even many leftists operate at. It would be impossible to go on living as before, being essentially a spectator whose life is work/shopping/entertainment, with the occasional political rally, lecture or movie to spice things up and make one feel involved. People like that, or even ones more involved with some regular effort at political reform, could no longer feel that the political situation could be changed for the better through small, incremental steps, a 100 year or even 500 year plan. This prospect is thoroughly unsettling, and is easier to deal with if simply dismissed outright. ...

Beneath unconscious motivations also lie some conscious agendas. Those on the Left who have embraced "critical support" for a "limited response" war will no doubt not wish to have their political bankruptcy exposed. But even most of those who oppose the War have nevertheless accepted the notion that the U.S. was attacked by a vicious enemy. For some, this represents an opportunity to promote their moralistic approach: let us respond in an appropriate, moral and non-military manner. Others, such as Chomsky, Michael Albert, Howard Zinn and Alex Cockburn, simply trot out the "blowback" explanation: this horrible attack happened because America has done bad things, has not listened to "us" (wag, wag the finger), and better start changing its policies (as if an empire can be run in a nice way!). Yet others who disagree with war boosters like Katrina van den Heuvel of The Nation nevertheless buy their thesis that the war promotes increasing state powers (e.g., making airport baggage inspectors federal employees), and this amounts to a move towards "socialism". If the events of 9/11 were not what they seemed to be, this takes away the chance to promote these political programs, perhaps to even advance certain careers."

page: sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/03/117429.php


__________________________

Perhaps those publications have decided that they don’t want to look mental. That’s not about close mindedness. That’s about looking at the available evidence, weighing it up, and thinking “Actually, the argument for an inside job makes no sense on this one”.

You can moan till your blue in the face about the – contested - speed of two seconds of WTC7’s collapse. You can take bits out of context from NIST’s report on it that you like, then ignore its clear, overarching conslusion.

That still looks pretty weak, and it looks incredibly unconvincing when weighed against the vast amount of evidence showing the attacks were carried out roughly as the official narrative shows, and the fact there have been incidents of Islamicist terrorism around the world (including a previous attack on WTC in 1993).

Why try destroying three massive buildings from the top down - a way which hadn’t been used before and which controlled demolition experts would regard as weird? Why involve thousands in a plot that – if one person spoke – would bring down the Republican party forever? Why design the plot around ensuring that the planes / holograms would hit WTC1 and WTC2 at specific heights to tie in with pre-planted explosives, and in such a way that sufficient debris would land on WTC7 to tear large chunks out of it? Why go to all this trouble then implicate Saudis – US allies? Why not bother planting one bit of evidence linking it to Iraq? Why not fake a WMD factory / cache in the desert if your conspiracy is so brilliant (infinitely easier than sneaking explosives in to some of the most guarded, busy offices in the world)? Oh – and if Karl Rove and co are so all-powerful and all-controlling why are they now being side-lined by a breed of dim, folksy Christian soccer moms? And so on, and so on.

And, no, it’s not necessary to take a truther stance on 911 to believe that the “war on terror” is baloney. It’s pretty obvious to everyone, in the UK at least, that 9/11 wasn’t a justification for Iraq in the slightest, and more than a mite tenuous for the lengthy military involvement in Afghanistan.

America was attacked on 9/11 because of its policies towards the muslim world not because muslims hate the American way of life or because neo cons inside the US government planned the attacks as an excuse for war.

For example America gives 5 billion dollars of aid each year to Israel which is oppressing the Palestinians and stealing their land with settlement in the occupied terrortries. America killed around 100,000 Iraqis during Gulf War One. America supports oppressive corrupt regimes in arab countries. Full article is here:
 http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/al-qaeda/bin-laden-message.htm

because the result was no air-traffic. So far the most effective action to stop climate terror. Propably the reason the indians in their concentration camps partied with cheap booze.
America is big enough to free the indians and put the european opressors that occupy America since 1492 into reservation camps.

How could I have missed that, it so obvious! Truthers are denied a platform, it's a CIA conspiracy! not because most people think they are loons.

I mean come on, Noam Chomsky will unconsciously not publish "truth" material because you can trace Zmag bag to the CIA through some very tenuous links? I must email good old Chomo and ask him. That's like saying because there is a discrepancy in explaining how building 7 fell for a very short period in it's collapse with very little resistance, therefore: the planes were holographic or some such.

They could have at least tried to stop Chomo publishing his other very subversive writings but, alas no, they can stay.

Although, I wouldn't beleive what I say, I am on the dole, and who pays the dole? you got it! I am obviously in on the conspiracy.

Chortle.

This lot still cannot except that the state is vulnerable and open to attacks can they? Everytime an attack on any state mechanism happens be it 9/11 or simply some anarchists burning an embassy it always has to be an inside fucking job, either that or they were let do it so we'd all look bad in the press or they've got an excuse to crack down on us harder.

Listen, understand - all states, companies and other facists are vulnerable. All it takes is a very dedicated group of people from one ideology or another to go through with something big and their weakness is demonstrated on (generally) an international platform. Stop looking for the inside story, their isn't one

The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left

by Barrie Zwicker, 4-5 October 2007


part 1 (4 October 2007) :

 http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekeepersofleft1part04oct07.shtml

part 2 (5 October 2007):

 http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekeepersofleft2part05oct07.shtml

part 3 (5 October 2007):

 http://educate-yourself.org/cn/zwickergatekeepersofleft05oct07.shtml



The Left and the Israel Lobby

by Joseph Anderson, Dissident Voice, 8 June 2006

 http://dissidentvoice.org/June06/Anderson08.htm



A one-way bombardment called Gulf War

by B. J. Sabri, Online Journal, 31 December 2005

 http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_378.shtml



Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

by Jeffrey Blankfort, Left Curve, No.29, April 2005

 http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html



The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions

by Jeffrey Blankfort, Left Curve, April 2003

 http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html

“Educate yourself?”

OK – this site is priceless. Let’s leave aside the piece on Chomsky itself (because a: it just boils down to “he’s wrong because he disagrees with us - and he calls us conspiracists and that’s mean!”; and b: it’s been posted on here umpteen times before).

I’d not bothered following the link to the Educate Yourself website before. As well as truther guff, its key topics include: “The End Times” “Insights on Aliens” “Aliens Are Coming!” “Prevent Alien/Demonic Attacks” and “Protocols of Sion”.

And the truther movement gets upset when we suggest they’re a bunch of gullible loons.

The behaviour of the so-called "Truth movement" does call into question their mental health. The few members I have met have displayed classic symptoms.

Given that this post and all the others like it are just re-posts, perhaps it would be best to delete them.

Some truths are more palatable than others, especially if the mouth is still chewing around some ideology.

There are those unable to find their way through the tortuous path of disinformation and technical detail through no fault of their own but who would like to believe in their own open mind and so express doubts and ask questions of all.

Then there are those who would like us to believe in their own enhanced mental facilities and who therefore act in a lazy intellectual manner and just assume that they are correct without the need for eternal vigilance (the recommended retail price for freedom).

A further group suffer from the affliction of arrogance and for whom any question or thrust becomes a personal slight to their own self absorbed anti-intellectualism.

Finally, their are those wretched creatures who know better but who would seek to deny us the benefits of truth out of spite, fear or advancement, these people we can call shrills or spooks or just plain old 'agents'.

Let us not fall into the comfortable assumption that this site and those that post to it avoid these pitfalls.

911 was the event that capitulated us into the era of global warfare, encroaching fascism and for millions of souls (or individuals according to your belief system) - death. Let no one tell you it lacked historical significance.

Let no one tell you that this was that unique occurrence of total state honesty.

Those, here and elsewhere, that would deny you your right to question and load you with shame for your doubts and speculation, have no place in rational honest discourse. You can tell who they are here - those that would 'move you on' with 'nothing to see here' or those that would fashion you a hat from tin foil and crown you with it, those that would don their sacred white lab coats and point mockingly your way and those who would seek annulment or removal of your words for some unknown, unspeakable infractions.

The war on Terra is a war on YOU.

Facts remain, as ever, facts.

Universal laws and constants do not reverse at the will of kings or traitors, the seas and tides persist.

The criminals are at large and casting their gaze further still.

Resist.

Hahahah! someone cited Joseph Anderson as if he were a real source! HAhahaha!