Fox host Napolitano is a 9-11 Truther: "It couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us"
November 24, 2010 1:01 pm ET by Eric Hananoki
Yesterday, Fox Business host and Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano revealed himself as a believer in the conspiracy theory that the government is lying about the attacks on September 11. Speaking on a leading conspiracy show, Napolitano said that it's "hard for me to believe that" World Trade Center Building 7 "came down by itself" -- a central tenet of 9-11 conspiracy theories -- and claimed that "twenty years from now, people will look at 9-11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us."
Napolitano made his remarks on the radio show of Alex Jones, who is widely viewed as the leader of the conspiracy theory that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job. Jones describes himself as "one of the very first founding fathers of the 9-11 Truth Movement" and his website features a section for 9-11 conspiracy theories.
Popular Mechanics notes, "Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers." The publication, which frequently debunks 9-11 conspiracy theories, added that a "report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought."
The New York Times noted in 2008 that "the collapse of 7 World Trade Center -- home at the time to branch offices of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service and the Giuliani administration's emergency operations center -- is cited in hundreds of Web sites and books as perhaps the most compelling evidence that an insider secretly planted explosives, intentionally destroying the tower."
Napolitano has long appeared on the program of Jones, who has been criticized by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, among others, for outlandish conspiracy theories. However, as Jones himself indicated, this appears to be the first time Jones has discussed his pet cause with Napolitano on-air.
As Media Matters has documented, Napolitano's previous Jones appearances have been marked with conspiracy theories about the government and the "New World Order." For instance, Napolitano and Jones have agreed that Obama will "start a wider global war" to "be a prince," and discussed whether a powerful banking cartel linked to "world government" would "collapse the economy" and use that "as an excuse for martial law." Napolitano also told Jones of Texas secession: "That time has come. That may actually happen" because of the actions of the government.
Jones and Napolitano appear to have a close relationship and regularly praise each other.
Napolitano has previously hosted Jones on his Freedom Watch program when it was on FoxNews.com. It now airs daily on Fox Business - a development Jones repeatedly cheered during the interview. Napolitano has promised Jones that he will host him on his Fox Business program.
Napolitano has dabbled in 9-11 Truth discussion before. In March, while still on FoxNews.com, Napolitano hosted truther Jesse Ventura, who was given an unchallenged platform to push 9-11 conspiracy theories. At the conclusion of that interview, Napolitano wondered if "someday we will look on 9-11 the way we look on the JFK assassination today, that is, where people who question the government's involvement will be mainstreamed, rather than looked upon as an extremist fringe." Napolitano also hosted Ventura in October on Fox Business; during the interview, Ventura said he was investigating the "alleged Pentagon plane" attack, to which Napolitano replied, "we'll be watching."
Napolitano and Jones' discussion referenced a segment about WTC building 7 by Fox News host Geraldo Rivera, who hosted a group of family members of 9-11 victims asking the "NYC city council to investigate" the official account about building 7. Rivera, who has been outspoken against 9-11 conspiracy theories, said at the conclusion that he was "much more open minded" about 9-11 questions because of the involvement of 9-11 families and architects and engineers.
Napolitano later discussed the segment with Geraldo on his Fox Business program. Asked if he doubted the official conclusion about building 7, Geraldo said: "I think that it is highly unlikely that our government would do anything nefarious on a scale of this epic nature. However, the building does appear to come down in a way that is reminiscent of a controlled demolition."
Napolitano's belief in 9-11 conspiracy theories may make things awkward with his Fox News colleagues - especially Glenn Beck -- who have denounced 9-11 conspiracy theories and those associating themselves with anyone making them.
The following is Jones' discussion with Napolitano about 9-11:
JONES: OK finally, man because I've never raised this with you, because it's a subject I just leave alone with folks because I don't want to cause people problems. But you brought it up with Geraldo Rivera, who says he is concerned about building 7, and I want to put the question you put to him to you. I mean, what do you think of Geraldo Rivera coming out -- what do you think of 7?
NAPOLITANO: It's hard for me to believe that it came down by itself. I was gratified to see Geraldo Rivera investigating it. I am gratified to see that people across the board are interested.
I think twenty years from now, people will look at 9-11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us.
JONES: Well, I want to tell you this. You've got a lot of courage, Judge, and so does Geraldo Rivera. I don't agree with him on some of his more liberal political views, but I do resonate with his courage, and I resonate with yours, and I already had the highest respect for you, but now the thermometer just broke. And the mercury -- geysering out of it right now. Judge, you are a great American, and I just can't wait till your show is number one on Fox Business, when you're on regular Fox full time, because no army can stop an idea whose time has come.
After the interview, Jones praised "awesome" Napolitano for his 9-11 Truth views and criticized the "George Soros publications" who would "persecute" Napolitano:
Previously:
Fox's Napolitano joins 9-11 Truther Alex Jones to push anti-government conspiracy theories
Will Napolitano bring radical conspiracies and praise of 9-11 Truth leaders to his new Fox show?
I Googled the Guy & i Froze in my Seat, i mean i couldn't Budge.
Truther? it doesn't matter what he says or does he won't lose his Job.
idiots? You can have Satan's Horns on your Head for all Fox cares they just hired Lou Dobbs.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
I think fox is playing mmfa just the way Beck does on his daily radio show. You people fall right into their schemes and only make yourselves look like the sheeple you are.
When you people grow up it would be interesting to see if you have real ideas or just parroted ones, as you do now.
Second, just because "liberal idiots" pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories, MMFA should defend them? That makes no sense.
Third, recall that Beck's attacks on Van Jones were based in part because of truther issues.
When you grow up it will be interesting to see if you have coherent ideas.
These people comprised the Nazis, the Red Terror, the Great Leap Forward, The Ku Klux Klan, the NeoCons...and now the MMfA crowd.
Says the man who can't even figure out how to operate the "save" button when there are only two choices. I think by using the 110 number he was trying to give you people the benefit of the doubt. It seems he was being very generous, considering you people constantly repost the same post multiple times thinking each time it will work better than the last time you clicked on the button.
By the way aside from IQ not being a measure of latent intelligence the way it's most commonly used the index is such that for any given age the average intelligence is 100 (the measure is (score/expected_score_for_age) * 100, so if you score higher than is expected for your age your final IQ score will be over 100, if you score as expected for your age your final score will be higher than 100 and if you score less than expected for your age the final score will be below 100...just in case the equation alone didn't tell you all of that).
Also you fail to establish an actual correlation between being "progressive" and being a member of your so-called "hook-line-and-sinker" crowd. I would consider myself very progressive, but it's primarily because I don't just believe what I'm told by an authority figure. I'm very interested in the underlying facts. I take the time to study subjects as diverse as economics, mathematics, logic, biology, physics, psychology, etc. I'm a very curious person and dispassionately logical. If something strikes me as irrational I'll doubt it no matter who is saying it. I also understand that in general I can disagree with a person on points without disagreeing with them in general and conversely agree with a person on points without agreeing with them in general. It all depends on how rational the person is.
And by the way the statistical distribution of IQs is a classic bell curve with the majority of people hovering around 100 and peaking at 100. So in case you missed it before trending even near 110 (and if you intended to say "progressives" trended much lower you should have picked a much lower number) would still put most at least slightly above average intelligence.
<SNARK>
If Bill Clinton was going around taking care of those penny ante murders, he wouldn't have had time to trample the rights of the innocent Branch Davidians and frame them, blow up the Murrah Building and blame it on Tim McVeigh, bomb the World Trade Center TWICE, carry out a "wag the dog" attack against al Qaeda in Sudan...
Some people - like Jones, Napolitano, Gerald Celente, Peter Schiff etc. will tell it like it is regardless of a person's political affiliation. It may be new to you all, but you should get used to it. No coddling to either wing of the US's corrupt political-corporate establishment which is destroying the conutry.
How many of the WTC workers and staff would have to be in on this plot in order for it remain completely secret and be successful? I'm assuming there were hundreds of security personnel, facilities maintenance workers, and Port Authority police officers on staff around the clock. And we're supposed to believe that people with demolition expertise were able to penetrate these buildings in such a way that allowed them to carry in and plant enormous amounts of explosives at crucial structural points?
How does such an elaborate plot to demolish buildings go completely unnoticed and not produce any witnesses? The only answer I can come up with is a conspiracy involving dozens, if not hundreds of WTC workers who were all willing to sacrifice their lives or their jobs, and commit treason and mass murder.
It's freakin' ridiculous.
Some of the truthers themselves don't understand whose water they are carrying, mostly dumb college kids with Che t-shirts on, trying to be contrary and edgy.
But here's the crux of it: if the US government, or some other shadowy group, was responsible for 9/11, what was the point? Depending on whom you ask, the responsible group was the same group that secretly orchestrates all manner of global crisis events in order to manipulate and control the entire world. First and foremost, the 9/11 attacks served as a pretext for war in the middle east, specifically against the aggrieved Arab peoples under the subjugation of.. you guessed it, Israel. And you know who is really running the show, right? Jews. They control the banks, they control the currencies, they control world events, they control Barack Obama, and they caused 9/11. And they control the media, and your mind.
The 9/11 truther movement is led and its tenets devised by viciouis anti-Semites, like Jones, who sometimes try to veil their true colors. But it is obvious if you have ever engaged a well-versed truther, you'll find that the wild conspiracy theories that all link together in this twisted ideology root back to the late 19th century, through Nazi propaganda, and right on up to the present-day world of... dare I say it, Fox News.
Your analysis here couldn't be more accurate. Jones pretty much pioneered what Beck is doing now...and what that is is mainstreaming a new scapegoating fascist philosophy with deep anti-semitic roots. It took me a while to realize this as I also question the "official" 9-11 story. These guys have three primary techniques of mainstreaming this old far right "national socialist" worldview:
One thing that I learned from all of this is how organized and pervasive this old far right anti-semitic stuff is. They have truly learned how to greatly further their cause while also keeping it largely disguised. allyoureyes, how did you come to realize all of this?
I have said many times that these conspiracy theories/ 911 truthers are based in the same racist and anti semitic nonsense that drove the Nazis. It comes down to the 'evil money changing Jews' who control the banks and want to enslave all people under a New World Order.
One of my favorite tactics of these folks is their use of the term 'sheeple'. If you do not agree almost 100% with their interpretation of 'facts' they accuse of you being lead by the MSM lies and blind to the reality that their special powers allow them to see. When the truth is, all Alex Jones has to do is say 'jump' and all his followers will ask, immediately, 'How High?'. THEY are the sheeple who fall for simple explanations of the complexity and nuance of reality. They bleet and nod and in compliance as their leaders, Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley etc. fill their heads with specious facts creating an army of non-critically thinking robot-drones convinced of some of the bat-$h!t craziest ideas . . . but we are the sheeple.
Chomsky said right that the belief and pursuit of these theories blind you to much of the actual systemic injustices that exist.
Oh yeah and they all LOVE them some Ron Paul and libertarianism. Their cognitive dissonance knows no bounds!
woof- This CT stuff gets me rolling!
How did you figure all this out mhughen? I'm convinced that one thing that has made all this spreading of fascist ideology possible is the complete ignorance of what fascist ideology actually is by most Americans (Beck exploits the living heck out of this ignorance). It took me about a year to see it for what it was.
THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
The exact BLUE PRINT of The BUSH administration's WAR. If you read nothing else, read page 51. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Written by the Bush gang, in the spring of 1997.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone questioning and investigating the government about this or anything else, and it does not mean they are wrong or right just because the government propaganda says it. BTW, the "Mechanics" articles and sources have been debunked.
I've looked at the "evidence" that 911 could have been an inside job, and it's mostly out of context quotes, and relies on believing that over a million people could be "in on it." If there was indeed a conspiracy, how come NO ONE, after almost 10 years after the attacks, has come out to admit to said conspiracy?
Not to mention that there are plenty of demolition experts and scientists that agree that it was planes, not explosives, that brought down the towers.
And Obama birthers are just closeted racists, believing that Barack Hussein Obama planned his birther conspiracy since he was conceived.
In short, I have no time for paranoid conspiracies from either side of the political aisle. 911 was done by a group of radical terrorists (not the government), and Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and has the birth certificate to certify it.
Media Matters is wrong to sustain the idea that we haven't been lied to, and insinuate that anybody who questions the lines we've been fed is a nutcase! There's too much evidence out there for them to think they can ignore it, too! The truth is the US media missed the boat, were coerced after the fact, and these insiders at Media Matters don't want that blood on their professional hands either!
Really?? And here I thought that most (haha) of those conspiracy theories had been put to bed. (silly me)
Popular Mechanics notes:
That statement should scare people way more than these silly "the government brought down the towers" theories.
I am also on the 'Left' so you all can stop saying that I don't exist. I do exist. Sometimes I am even clever, like for example the Tea Party was actually my idea.
I think 9-11 was an inside job because I understand the science of physics. All three building were demolished with explosives. It was a military coup. If you look at the data for the pentagon is is obvious it was a missile, not a plane. Our own military did it.
There is a lot of good data but you have to dig for it and I guess it must also be necessary to understand science judging from the comments here.
There is also a lot of misinformation and cover up material out there and some CIA type folks who constantly criticize anyone and everyone who looks into it. It is really quite awful to see the smear campaign they use to cover it up.
Sort of like what the insurance industry did to Michael Moore. In fact, I wonder if the two cover ups are related. They very well might be, Bush does connect them ...
Yea, I'm not holding my breath for that one.
So let's understand you're lying...
- -
But seriously folks. Eric Hananoki, your send-up on this is epic weak, falling far short of Media Matters standards, even in the blog. You'd have represented yourself better if you had quit after the headline -- just the facts, man. Yes, he said 'it' was not possible "the way the government told us." Period.
Please notice that statement is not a conspiracy theory. Just the opposite: It is debunking (refuting) a conspiracy theory -- the government told us a conspiracy theory ('theory' since the government version is void of tangible evidence) -- and Napolitano cuts it down as an impossible conspiracy theory.
Please notice Napolitan does not introduce a different 'theory,' of his own. Only he says the cockamamie government theory is bogus -- impossible.
He could have. But he didn't. He didn't say what happened. The government said what happened, as imagined in thought.
Eric, you miss the distinction between 'someone' saying a theory of what happened, and then someone else saying 'no, nope, that theory is false,' which you deform into representing "a believer in the conspiracy theory that the government is lying." One is not a "believer" and it is not a "theory" to show a lie is a lie; proving a lie is not a issue of 'belief' or 'opinion' -- everyone has different beliefs or opinions but there is only one set of facts.
In fact, in that same first paragraph, Eric, your opinion might be expressed clearer by re-wording this clause: "... World Trade Center building 7 'came down by itself' -- a central tenet of 9-11 conspiracy theories." It is the cockamamie government theory which 'claims' to 'believe' that WTC 7 came down by itself. Whereas the impression I have of your opinion, Eric, is that you believe the government's conspiracy theory entirely and, so, you surely support that in one rationale that WTC 7 came down by itself.
If you know WTC 7 "came down." Many people are surprised to learn that.
Actually, many refuse to 'learn' it and instead say they don't believe it; it's only a "theory" (that WTC 7 turned into a cloud of dust on 9/11/01).
“Why is there a Third Beam in my skyline?” New Yorkers are asking themselves tonight.
source: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Sep 12, 2010
If you had quit while you were at the headline, Eric, you'd not have worsened the weakness of your opinion as you have it. You cite Popular Mechanics and The New York Times debunking a part of a conspiracy theory ... a theory which Napolitano didn't offer; (this time -- if he said it somewhere some other time, debunk it there, then, and here deal with what he said this time, according to this headline). Moreover, Popular Mechanics failed to substantiate the bogus government theory and failed to insubstantiate evidence which disproves the bogus government theory. The credibility of The New York Times on the subject of cockamamie government theory is as sure as its popularized WMDs in Iraq: nonexistent.
Besides, as counterpoint to make a fair and balanced presentation rightly demonstrating Napolitano's wrong, Eric, you left out knowing material that he bases his opinion on -- in documents compiled and expertly attested in the verification of a majority of all licensed and accredited practicing architects and engineers (here); in documented physical evidence of explosives residue in the debris of the three buildings that "came down" and absence of explosives residue in the debris of WTC building 5 which was fire-gutted and remained standing (here); in documented physics evidence of measured fact (you, at home, can determine for yourself) that the energetic reaction of each building exceeded a hundred times the action energy in the cockamamie government theory (here).
-
Look, Eric. Napolitano is disreputable in my opinion like others', and the same goes for FOX ten times worse. I dismiss most of what Alex Jones says that reaches me, or Geraldo Rivera. I hope a war of idiots develops between Beck and everyone of FOX. I'd have them all in an unemployment line, or incarcerated, if I could. But, they can be 99% wrong and yet be 1% right. My sensibility regarding these loonies might be expressed in this analogy:
The most deplorable, despicable, lying stack of snot to me is Geo Bush, (meaning George SinisteR more than George JokeR), and TV in my view is propaganda puke. However, if he appeared on TV and said, "there is no Santa Claus really, it's a myth of fiction," then in my opinion he told the truth, (probably accidentally), despite millions of voices which for a hundred years have said there is, and believe there should be, a Santa Claus as well as one editorial writer crafting a deceptive sense of awe and wonder for a little girl named Virginia. Still, the truth is: there is no Santa Claus in reality, only a visceral pathos of him, and there is no evidence there were really 9/11 hijackers, only a visceral hatred of oil-endowed Muslims.
And, yeah, that pops a lot of people's wish-bubble and hangs over a century of petroleum gluttony. In my opinion. And it does not repair Napolitano nor demean me if he says it too. But it weakens your standing if you decry in principle his right of free belief.
-
I'm glad you presented this. Is this missive, or maybe you, a paragon of the 9/11 Truth cause? Just asking.
I'm torn about doing it, but okay, I'm going to try to digest your English. Standby...
Your thesis is that the U.S. Government conspiracy theory is false; there is no evidence of hijackers. Fine. You say Napolitano refutes that hijacker theory. Took you five paragraphs to say it, but that's the distillation.
You mangled the logic from the word Go, because you misunderstood the conspirators. Hananoki wasn't talking about the hijackers as conspirators, he was talking about the U.S. Government as conspirators. And it's in your own quote above: "conspiracy theory that the government is lying." Hananoki was addressing YOU, and Napolitano, those who contend the Government is lying.
Anyway, off you go to present your case, I guess mostly about WTC building 7 and the veracity of some sources, but nuggets such as these:
Your thesis is that the U.S. Government conspiracy theory is false; there is no evidence of hijackers. Fine. You say Napolitano refutes that hijacker theory. Took you five paragraphs to say it, but that's the distillation.
You mangled the logic from the word Go, because you misunderstood the conspirators. Hananoki wasn't talking about the hijackers as conspirators, he was talking about the U.S. Government as conspirators. And it's in your own quote above: "conspiracy theory that the government is lying." Hananoki was addressing YOU, and Napolitano, those who contend the Government is lying.
Anyway, off you go to present your case, I guess mostly about WTC building 7 and the veracity of some sources, but nuggets such as these:
failed to insubstantiate...
compiled and expertly attested in the verification of a majority...
documented physics evidence of measured fact...
energetic reaction of each building...action energy...
a myth of fiction...
deceptive sense of awe and wonder...
visceral pathos...
decry in principle his right of free belief...
You try so hard to convince people of something, I don't know what, and you use these phrases...they are just a ball of confusion. What a mess. "Insubstantiate" isn't even a word. To have that much questionable English leads me to believe that you are often lifting from others' writings, cutting and pasting in your head, without much thinking about how much sense it makes.
My conclusion from the agony of reading this is to not bother reading Truther fluff, especially if yours is among the best there is to offer.
Here's a slogan for you:
Truthers Insubstantiate!
The 9/11 commission report may not have properly investigated a lot of our failures in the area of prevention, but it did investigate and establish with overwhelming evidence the existence of hijackers on the planes that struck the WTC towers, the Pentagon and crashed in Pennsylvania after the passengers took on the hijackers before they hit their target. The responsibility of Al Qaeda is also established by overwhelming evidence in said report. You should read it some time.
The key phrase there is "where people who question the government's involvement will be mainstreamed...". These facts are highly indicative of Napolitano's position relative to the 9-11 truth movement. By the way even today people who think JFK was assassinated by the government and there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll are looked upon as an extremist fringe. Who is this man hanging around that he's so out of touch?
The charges of antisemitism are, of course, a complete red herring and are always a reliable way to tar your opponents if all else fails. I've listened to Alex Jones on an occasional basis over the years and have never heard him say anything racist. If he is indeed, a "vicious antisemite", as one poster stated, I would sincerely like to see some proof cited. And instead of thinking of Jones as the "the leader of the [9/11] conspiracy theory", that title should more properly go to people like David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, or Richard Gage, who are scientists and political writers. But Jones, a Texas right-libertarian with a cracker accent is a much easier target for people who wish to emphasize tone rather than fact.
Really, you guys are an embarrassment.
Listen now and hear me forever, truthers. I and many others strongly and continually question our government's words, actions and motives. We are the opposite of what you truthers claim we must be for not accepting your paradigm. It is the truthers who blindly accept even the most bizarre stories as immutable fact just because Alex Jones says so. You truthers are the bleating, uncritical followers deluded by your own exclusionary certainty. I rarely trust my government, but I never trust snake-oil peddlers like Alex Jones.
First of all, this type of labeling is not productive or accurate; just because I don't understand how 3 steel-framed skyscrapers can burn down on the same day (and at no other time in history) doesn't mean I believe in phantom missiles, the face of Satan in a dust cloud, Zionist conspiracies, or anything Alex Jones says. Secondly, the attempt to tar people with a phrase like 'conspiracy theorist' is dishonest and intellectually lazy; anyone who understands the definition of 'conspiracy' would have to agree that the official story is a conspiracy theory. The U.S. attacked 2 sovereign nations in response to 9/11, so they definitely believed that there were at least a couple of dozen agents and government entities from Iraq and Afghanistan involved in the plot - the very definition of a conspiracy. Finally, the argument that a 'conspiracy theory' must have involved millions of willing participants who would have cracked by now is a deliberate straw man; the conspiracy in question might have involved any combination of high-level inaction, small-scale bribes, a few people ignoring protocols, hiding of evidence after the fact, deliberately putting forth crackpot theories after the fact to discredit 'truthers', or any other action that might have helped to hide the real story from the public.
Anyway, Alex Jones, Napolitano, the birthers, etc., are all offensive nutjobs. Why not look at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's website, or the excellent papers (published in peer-reviewed journals) by Stephen Jones, or the extensive evidence for nanothermites in the rubble (also published in peer-reviewed journals).
Incidentally, the NIST report did conclude that steel-framed structures must be much more susceptible to fire than previously thought; this has not brought about any change in building codes, insurance rates, or fire safety standards. Considering how often steel-framed skyscrapers catch fire (several times a year, worldwide), you would think someone would do something about the NIST's recommendations.
contrails, vaccines, fluoridation, population control, 9-11, leo wanta, fear of the UN, the amero, agenda 21, bildergberg, satanic illuminati. . . .
Its all so effin silly. Add the bizarrely pro-corporate Libertarian gunk in there and you have quite a mixed-up stew that requires such cognitive dissonance to keep together, Its kind of fascinating, really. Reminds me of the fanatical, prosthelytizing, born-again Christians running around my college campus so many years ago. You tinfoil-hat-wearing, conspiracy nuts are just as crazy and just as closed minded in your absolutism and certainty that you are the ones who have it all figured out. The embarrassment, Fred is on you.
As far as "you tinfoil-hat-wearing, conspiracy nuts" goes, that's just ignorant posturing, similar to "I hate truthers." As Michael Parenti said in a talk, "What are you, a Coincidence Theorist?" The official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 just doesn't add up. Space doesn't permit me starting an explanation on a subject many books have been written about. If there is a specific point you would like to discuss about 9/11, I'd be glad to try to take it up. Otherwise, I suggest you listen to any talk by David Ray Griffin or watch architect Richard Gage's "Blueprint For Truth" 120 minutes but available in 10, 33, and 60 minute versions. Perhaps you could afford an hour or two from your busy schedule to learn about the subject. Easily found by searching at video.google.com.
It would be sad, indeed, if the only voices against the obvious (if you choose to learn about it) government lie about 9/11 end up being those from the right, just as it would be if people like Ron Paul and Jones end up being the only voices against war and imperialism.
There is some posturing here from you too.
When looking for anti-imperialists I hope you afford an open mind to those who are not of the hard right like Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Noam Chomsky etc. especially since the political philosophy of Jones and Paul, Libertarianism, is essentially corporate imperialism.
Sure do. My point is that there are a few on the right also and it's nice to be aware of them and honor their tendencies and hope it will grow.
"Libertarianism is essentially corporate imperialism."
I guess I agree that that is true as far as it goes, but that's perhaps a bit different from international political imperialism, which the people I mentioned say they are against. You might say "what's the value of being against the one without being against the other, because the first will take you to the second," and I'd say that's a pretty good point, and these guys need some educating if they really want to not have the second (the international political kind). If I ever get to talk to a Ron Paul or a Judge Napolitano, that's what I'd tell them.
As far as "you tinfoil-hat-wearing, conspiracy nuts" goes, that's just ignorant posturing, similar to "I hate truthers." As Michael Parenti said in a talk, "What are you, a Coincidence Theorist?" The official government conspiracy theory about 9/11 just doesn't add up. Space doesn't permit me starting an explanation on a subject many books have been written about. If there is a specific point you would like to discuss about 9/11, I'd be glad to try to take it up. Otherwise, I suggest you listen to any talk by David Ray Griffin or watch architect Richard Gage's "Blueprint For Truth" 120 minutes but available in 10, 33, and 60 minute versions. Perhaps you could afford an hour or two from your busy schedule to learn about the subject. Easily found by searching at video.google.com.
It would be sad, indeed, if the only voices against the obvious (if you choose to learn about it) government lie about 9/11 end up being those from the right, just as it would be if people like Ron Paul and Jones end up being the only voices against war and imperialism.
Also be very careful about finding them appealing becuase they employ some amount of leftist rhetoric..this is a famous technique used by far-right fascist types to build up coalitions large enough to sieze power. They drop all that the second they run things (as they will the notion of "small government").
As I said before the history of the far right using the language of the left is the entire real basis for Goldbergs "Liberal Fascism" proposition where he goes so far as to redefine the "unpopular" right as actually being the left. Also realize that by following Jones & Paul that, if you are of a left persuasion, you are being used to build a far-right coalition. Look up Ernst Rohm or Strasser to see how that turns out.
Racists and anti semites have been saying the same $h!t for ages. It just gets repackaged by the latest generation. And this generation is VERY slick and increasingly savvy. But still, none of their predictions ever come true even though the sky is always just about to fall.
You have put forth, very clearly, some of those connections and I hope others will see them for what they are.
Contrails, vaccinations and turthers- oh my!
You don't hear Jones say anything identifiably racist because he is very, very careful not to tell you by name who he is talking about. What he WILL say is that we are locked in a struggle to the death with an international cabal of global financier occultists who are cultural parasites and directly control our government and have infiltrated our cultural institutions at every level and are destroying the moral fabric of our republic like a cancer. You'd have to be blind to not recognize this narrative for what it is and where it came from. Furthermore, Jones really doesn't seem to have any solution to this problem except for "a final showdown with the elites where the enemy will be destroyed". That also sounds familar.
And if that weren't enough....all you have to do is listen to what his frequent guests are telling their audiences when they're not under instruction to be well behaved on his show. I listened to one of his frequent guests go off on a paranoid rant about how you can't trust public figures in the "patriot" movement...even if they say all of the "right" things..they could still turn out to be double agents. Then this fellow proceeded to list someone by name who he felt was saying the right things but ultimately felt had sold out. Who was this person saying "all the right things"? David Duke.
Then you have frequent guest Texe Marrs who Jones has stated is a close personal friend, a great teacher and even perfomed the marriage between Jones and his wife. Marrs doesn't waste any time telling you what he believes and what he believes is that "it's the jews". Go see for yourself: "Who Jew?"—That’s the title of an article written recently on the internet by a well-known Jewish author..
And if that weren't enough let's look into Jones associate and bilderburg researcher Big Jim Tucker who has appeared in Jones documentaries and has also been employed by noted long time anti-semite Willis Carto since 1975.
I could go on for days with this stuff.
Care to take this back now?
I also looked up Big Jim Tucker and the most damning thing about him seemed to be his association with "The Spotlight" and "The American Free Press." If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article for alleged antisemitism by these publications, you go to an ADL article "9/11 Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories Still Abound", which says that these publications publish articles saying that Israel and the Mosad may have been connected with 9/11. So? I know that Spotlight seems to have some history of being antisemitic. I'm only 67, and maybe the real nasty stuff is before my time. I know Mark Lane was criticized by liberals for working for them in a lawsuit in the '90's.
Anyway, it all seems like a lot of guilt by several degrees of disassociation as far as Alex Jones is concerned, and I stand behind my assertion that it is ridiculous to refer to him as "a vicious antisemite." You more or less acknowledge this in saying how careful he is to not say anything racist, although you ascribe sinister motivation for it.
About Tucker and Willis Carto and associated publications being anti-semitic. Go get yourself a few copies of the AFP or spend some time perusing the online site of another Willis publication:
The Barnes Review
it won't take too long before the truth sinks in about who these people think is to blame for all the worlds problems. You might also want to look into who that publication is named after:
Anti-Semitic Historian Harry Elmer Barnes
So here you have Jones expert on the "global elite", Jim Tucker, who has spent his entire career in the employ of a professional anti-semite. If you do spend some time reading AFP you'll find out that it presents the EXACT same narrative as Jones but isn't afraid to actually name whom the "the enemy" is. Go ahead and dive in...don't take the ADL's word for it, let these guys speak for themselves and they'll tell you exactly who they believe is the problem.
About the several degrees of seperation..according to Jones himself Marrs was tremendously influential in forming Jones understanding of how "things work". Marrs is such a father figure to Jones that he presided over Jones wedding. That's not several degrees of separation. The guy I heard praising David Duke was a frequent cohost on Jones show...that's not several degrees of seperation. Make no mistake these guys ARE all vicious anti-semites...Jones particularly so because he sugar coats it in an attempt to draw people in who ordinarily wouldn't flirt with these types of ideas.
I looked at the Barnes Review, and looked into Willis Carto, and I agree that the former promotes antisemitic books, and that the latter is an antisemite. (On the other hand, I looked at the web site for the AFP and didn't find, after an admittedly quick look, antisemitic or other racist articles, for what that's worth.) But I don't think that's the end of the story.
You say that the idea that "elites run the world" is merely a code for "Jews run the world." I think that's not quite it. I think people like Jones and many of the people he runs with think that "elites run the world" and that some of them think that Jews make up some of the elite, and a few of them think that Jews ARE the elite. I looked at Jones' "book store" on his InfoWars site. I didn't see any that were obviously anti-Jewish but I saw several about elite groups, such as "the Illuminati." The one with the most garish and provocative title was "Bloodlines of the Illuminati." I though that "bloodlines" seemed a good lead-in to Nazi-type anti-Jewish thought, but I found that he was talking about "family names such as Astor, DuPont, Kennedy, Onassis, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Russell, Van Duyn and Krupp." The whole book is available online, and you get a few more names in the first pages, with Cecil Rhodes' being prominent.
Another example. One of the films promoted is "The Money Masters", which I happen to have watched. There's a lot in it about the Rothschild family, so much so that I thought it at least verged on antisemitism. But the main emphasis of the film is against central banks, e.g., the Federal Reserve, and is a plea for the policies of the Greenback movement. The same people's revised work, "The Secret of Oz", has little about the Rothschilds and concentrates entirely on monetary policy.
I think these libertarian types refuse to deal with capitalism as a problem in itself and can only find the enemy to what they think would be a better world in the idea that elites of very rich and powerful individuals "corrupt" what, in their minds, is the good idea of capitalism. Blaming the Jews, for whatever historical reasons, is just one of the ways it shows itself.
What makes it more complicated for me is that I think there is some truth to the "elites running things" idea. Referring to Michael Parenti again, in his arguments over "functionalism" and "structuralism" (is it a few bad apples or is it the whole system?) with people like Chomsky, he pointed out that, while we all expect schoolteachers and teamsters to "conspire" together in quests for higher wages, we scoff at the idea that the very rich might conspire in their own behalf. Of course they do! What else are groups like the Bilderbergers, the Bohemian Club, and the Council On Foreign Affairs about? Parenti says that while it is the "structure" that is at fault, Chomsky and others are wrong to not realize that it is through events like assassinations and false flag operations that the structure sometimes manifests. I listened to an interview with John LeCarre on "Democracy Now" this morning where he talked about the levels of money laundering corruption and collusion between criminals, bankers, and politicians. And just before that, I listened to an hour talk about essentially the same thing by Matt Taibbi, comparing the corruption of Russia when he was there to that of modern America and finding little difference between the two. I think where people like Jones go wrong is in trying to blame it all on a few secret people at the top, but I don't think they are wrong about the people at the top. And just because some of them might turn out to be Jews, and just because some (a few, thankfully) of the people who concern themselves with the problems of oligarchy may have an unhealthy interest in connecting Jews to that oligarchy, doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Some of the same happens with the "9/11 truth movement." Although I hasten to make clear that most of us do not claim to know exactly what happened on 9/11, saying instead that we're only pretty sure what did not happen, people of course will speculate, especially when people who disagree with the main premise ask questions like, "why would anyone other than Moslems do it?", "how could people the buildings have been wired without thousands of people being involved", and so forth. And when people think about the "cui bono" aspect, of course Israel and the "neocoms", many of whom are Jewish with close ties to Israel, who wrote "Prospect For A New America", where the idea that war on the Arab countries would be hard to start unless public resistance were to be overcome by a "new Pearl Harbor", are some of the people who might come to mind. At least they certainly do come to my mind. And besides "cui bono", which of course is not really evidence of anything, there are a few pieces of actual evidence (Google "dancing Israelis") that strengthen speculation in that direction, if one is feeling speculative. On the other hand, at the same time, I must admit that often in "9/11" forums, real honest-to-god antisemites will stick their oars in from time to time, and it's certainly a problem. Do you argue with them drain all energy from whatever the original topic was, ignore them, or what? I do either depending on whim and what I think makes sense at the time. And most of us try to "keep our eyes on the prize" which is not speculating on what might have happened but considering how to convince more people that the government story is untrue.
But to get back to the antisemitism issue, I feel that bringing antisemitism into a discussion about 9/11, as has been done in this thread, is a distraction, this time not by antisemites but by people who are perhaps so concerned about antisemitism that they cannot discuss anything that they think might lead to it somehow, but it really does not further knowledge and discussion in the case of how to think about 9/11. And that's where I'll leave it for tonight.
Then you claim you debunk and don't speculate:
Immediately, in the same sentence, you spray us with speculation, vaguely rambling through something about "cui bono" and "new Pearl Harbor" and "dancing Israelis," and pieces of evidence that "strengthen speculation in that direction." Then at the end of the paragraph, you reiterate that "most of us" are "not speculating on what might have happened."
What a crock. If you are just debunking, then erase all that "Secret of Oz" and "false flag operations" and "new Pearl Harbor" tripe that you claim to avoid.
What you did was just a long-winded version of "I'm just sayin'." No accountability.
Okay, let's give it a go: Fred's car got rear-ended, but someone told me Fred might have been upset yesterday. Fred said he was coming to a stop and a guy slammed into him, but there's the idea that someone said he could use insurance money. Someone people say you can hit your brakes really hard at an intersection when the light's about to turn, which might strengthen speculation in that direction. I'm just sayin'.
Sorry, I assumed the new Pearl Harbor comment would be clear. Apparently not. Here's a link for the "dancing Israelis".
"All those hundreds of words to say that SolomonKane is right about those anti-semites, and that it's okay to cite them without disclosure."
I guess that IS essentially what I'm saying -- that their views on Jews or anything else doesn't have much to do with 9/11, anymore than their views on Jews or anything else have much to do with the water purifiers Alex Jones always seems to be promoting, except in perhaps very tenuous ways. Just a distraction and a way to put down what he says about 9/11. (But for good measure, I reiterate that I haven't seen evidence that Alex Jones is a "vicious antisemite".)
I didn't say I never speculate (I love to speculate), just that the main purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is not to speculate but is to show that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is a tissue of lies. I also said that it's a distraction to spend a lot of time talking about antisemitism where it doesn't belong, and yet I spent several hours of my day doing it. Emerson said, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," but in this case, I thought it might be a good idea to talk about it rather than let it slide.
I didn't get the "Fred's car" analogy, but then I can't say I really tried.
About the obsession with the "Illuminati", you'll notice that there is very little information presented tying the current global elite to what actually is known about the historical illuminati(they did really exist). There is no effort to explain this in almost all truther media although the term is used over and over. It's almost like it's code for something else....
Also, about that book "Bloodlines of the Illuminati" you should look into the author of it and find out what he's all about:
FRITZ SPRINGMEIER – ANOTHER HUMAN TRAGEDY
UPDATE ON FRITZ SPRINGMEIER
And that information is taken from sources partially sympathetic to him. Brief overview of this guy is that he's a self described christian "prophet", warrior against the "illuminati", white separatist, drug dealer and bank robber. Well and he's doing business with Jones.
Another thing about Springmeier (this will be somewhat of an anti-semitic rosetta stone) is that he was accused by another conspiracy theorist, Jordan Maxwell of stealing his material on the illuminati just to make a cheap profit. Maxwell's case for this was pretty compelling since Fritz does seem to be of questionable moral character. Now if Fritz Springmeier (which is probably an outrageously overly "Germanic" pseudonym...got to read in between the lines here) got his info from Maxwell then the next question is where did Maxwell get his secret info on the illuminati? Fortunately he tells us...the basis for his understanding of these people is a book called "Occult Theocrasy" by Judith Starr Miller. I believe that he thought that this book was so important that he purchased the publishing rights to it to make sure that it stayed in print. So who is Judith Starr Miller? Apparently she was an American who married into British royalty who were involved and supported the newly forming...British fascist movement! Central to their belief system was that there was a masonic jewish plot to lever Bolshevism to overthrow the state and church. Miller eventually wrote 3 books: Common Sense (same way Beck ripped off T Paine some 90 years later), Occult Theocracy and you guessed it: Judaism. See a theme here?
Now here's another part of the Rosetta stone relating to the "Money Masters" and where Jones & Company are coming from with their hatred of the federal reserve. A lot of this comes from a John Bircher by the name G Edward Griffin who wrote a book called "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve". In this book Griffin levels a lot a well deserved criticism at the fed but then strangely (I thought at first) proceeds to blame it all on various socialists and communists. Well turns out that there's a whole lot more background to what Griffin is on about here because he's doing what Jones does and isn't telling you by name who he's really blaming. The Jekyll Island book is really a sanitized synopsis of a much earlier book called "Mullins on the Federal Reserve", now this book as far as I know is the original of it's kind (in THIS country anyway). The author is a fellow by the name of Eustace Mullins who was commissioned by poet Ezra Pound to investigate and write it. Why was a poet like Pound interested in this? Because he had just been "returned" to the USA after working a job writing fascist propaganda for Mussilini blaming "the jews" for all of the world's economic problems. The important part of the blame in terms of this conversation is that to fascists like Starr or Mullins the jews, the masons, the communists and the socialists are all the same people (Griffin won't come out and say this he only will elude to it). Mullins turned this into an entire career eventually publishing under the label "The Aryan League".
I'm sure the picture is becoming clear now. My purpose in "illuminating" this isn't to unfairly sling accusations of anti-semitism in a discussion about 9-11 but to help expose what the self proclaimed leaders of the "truth movement" really believe and what their agenda is. This may seem not relevant to the story about Napolitano and/or what actually happened on 9-11 but in actuality it couldn't be more relevant to the mission of media matters because it shows the fundamental dishonesty and relentless nature of the fear mongering right wing media.
How does all this relate to 9/11 inquiries? My main concern is that association with antisemitism is being used here to denigrate the idea that the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a false one. Why should what Alex Jones might or might now think about Jews have any bearing on what he says about 9/11? You say, "My purpose in "illuminating" this isn't to unfairly sling accusations of anti-semitism in a discussion about 9-11 but to help expose what the self proclaimed leaders of the "truth movement" really believe and what their agenda is. This may seem not relevant to the story about Napolitano and/or what actually happened on 9-11 but in actuality it couldn't be more relevant to the mission of media matters because it shows the fundamental dishonesty and relentless nature of the fear mongering right wing media."
Well, it may be "relevant to the mission of media matters", but that doesn't mean that what such people say is untrue, or at least that everything they say is untrue. Take a look at the Jones' "Sept-11" page linked to in the original article -- tell me what "fundamental dishonesty and fear mongering" you see in the 25 or so articles referenced there, beyond the idea that the government is lying about 9/11. The founding fathers of the US may all have been white supremacists. Does that mean that we should reject their ideas on all subjects? Did the "self proclaimed leaders" of American independence have a hidden "agenda" because of what they "really believed". C'mon.
I disagree with Alex Jones on too many issues to spend much time listening to him, but I'm always happy for his work on 9/11. As I believed I mentioned earlier, I spend much more time listening to David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, and the many thoughtful experts of physics and architecture when I feel the inclination to refresh myself about 9/11 truth.
The charges of antisemitism are, of course, a complete red herring and are always a reliable way to tar your opponents if all else fails. I've listened to Alex Jones on an occasional basis over the years and have never heard him say anything racist. If he is indeed, a "vicious antisemite", as one poster stated, I would sincerely like to see some proof cited. And instead of thinking of Jones as the "the leader of the [9/11] conspiracy theory", that title should more properly go to people like David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, or Richard Gage, who are scientists and political writers. But Jones, a Texas right-libertarian with a cracker accent is a much easier target for people who wish to emphasize tone rather than fact.
Really, you guys are an embarrassment.
You are mentally ill.
Silly me.
...and despite NPR and Bill Maher verbally patting you on the head and telling you how much smarter you are than your fellow Americans because you're a "progressive", it becomes obvious that your IQs trend below 110."
Now, look at WHAT THE's post, tersum3856 has proven his point.
Progressives and liberals are at least three times smarter than any Con/Repub and 5 times brighter than any TeaBaggers such as WHAT THE.
WhatThe, please come back often, you are funny.
P.S. Read many different posts from different threads and realize that the Fox campaign to trivialize MMFA has increased the number of Freepers chiming in. Which is what this site is all about.
Some of the posts pro or con co0ncerning the Truthers is very refreshing. But the amusing posters like WhatThe are heavenly.
Happy T-Day to all.
So, it is a sack of skunk diarrhea that has maggot infested bowls infected with AIDs? Are the bowls of infected maggots in the skunk diarrhea? And does the skunk have AIDs or does the sack have AIDs? Does your mom know you smoke crack in the basment while masurbating on the computer?
Lies about Afghanistan.
Lies about Vietnam.
Lies about the financial state of the nation.
Lies about our constitutional rights.
.... the endless list of lies and corruption
.... but, they tell you the TRUTH ABOUT 9/11.
hah!
With Extreme Prejudice
9/11 mass murder criminals
and their cover-up enablers
That got my interest to say the least. The next book I found before any of these kooks came out of the woodwork was David Ray Griffin. His book The New Pearl Harbor was very convincing and made my hair stand on end. Most of his argument surrounds the time-lines of the hijacked planes and why in the world were no jets scrambled for over an hour and a half. It just boggles the mind why NORAD and our military could be that incompetent. It really verges on criminal negligence.
The New Pearl Harbor led me to a book called War on Freedom by Nafeez Ahmed. This guy is a true scholar and it sure didn't read like a nutbag conspiracy book to me.
Now my point is this. Why is it when people talk about 9-11 it's always some complicated conspiracy or technical argument on the melting temperature of steel? The argument always ends up with how crazy Alex Jones, Napolitano and Jesse Ventura is. But no one seems to want to bring up the fact that it was really the left intellectuals like Vidal, David Ray Griffin and Nafeez Ahmed who wrote some of the first books on 9-11. These guys are clearly not crazy. And to this day haven't recanted.
http://en.unpacampaign.org/index.php