Wednesday, April 05, 2006

US Dept of State addresses 911 Conspiracy Theories

I only recently learned about a US Dept of State website that "identifies misinformation" and tells of "confused stories", one of them being "September 11 Conspiracy Theories". The webpage opens with this paragraph:

"Conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Many of the most popular myths are addressed on this Web site, in a March 2005 article “9/11: Debunking the Myths” in Popular Mechanics magazine, and in The 9/11 Commission Report."

Unbelievably, the US State Dept has relied on only two sources of information for the very important task of attempting to clarify "confused stories" about 911 - a Popular Science article and the 9/11 Commission Report.


You'd think the US government would have much more conclusive information to present to the public that would be able to dispell this "confusion" without doubt. The two sources they refer to though, are hardly conclusive, independent and are themselves the subject of many legitimate questions.

First, the March 2005 Popular Science article. The Hearst Corporation owned Popular Science magazine hired as "senior researcher" for the article, a 25-year-old named Benjamin Chertoff. Who is Benjamin Chertoff? American Free Press found "he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security." Ok, big deal, he is related to a key member of Bush's cabinet. Just a bit of nepotism. It got him a job, that is all. So, even granting that this kid joined the team with no agenda other than to research and write a story as he honestly thought best, he is still a 25 year old kid. He has no special credentials to investigate the 911 "confusion" especially as a "senior researcher". Put this young cousin of Michael Chertoff next to Steven Jones, Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University and co-founder of Scholars for 911 Truth and ask them both to discuss their research findings, and I am pretty sure that young Mr. Chertoff would be struggling to defend his "research" findings.

Aside from the questions of nepotism and clearly compromised impartiality (because Michael Chertoff has many questions of his own to answer to clear up any 911 "confusion") Popular Mechanics is the magazine of flying cars and cities of the future. Popular Mechanics has lots of far out articles about the exiting science of tommorrow such as military robots and fantastic new materials. This is not a publication to take seriously on whether or not cars will fly or a robot to clean your house, let alone something as significant as the many and complex events of 911. In any event, the arguments put forth by Popular Mechanics are selective and focus on "strawman" type issues that are amenable to being used to discredit all other issues raised. Two sources provide anlaysis on the Popular Mechanics article:

this reply to Popular Mechanics on

this essay on

Also, there are plausible claims of Popular Mechanics ties to the CIA. Even if these aren't true, it surely can't help the US Dept of State's argument. Why not use another source of information which nobody can doubt, for whatever reason?

Ok, on to the second source of information used by the US Dept of State to clear up 911 "confusion": The 911 Commission Report. This document is so riven with omissions and distortions and the conflicts of interest of nearly all the people on the 911 commission itself, including the low-ball budget, the reluctance for the Bush administration to even allow the investigation to actually happen, make this source of information dubious. Surely the US Dept of State can do better. Though we are reminded of Colin Powell holding up vials of anthrax and warning of mobile biochem labs in Iraq. Not a very credible lineage of evidentiary presentation. But, I'll let Dr. David Ray Griffin's analysis of that 911 Commission report tell you why the document does nothing to clear up 911 "confusion" but only adds much more confusion.

For the US Dept of State to use only these two sources to counter "confused stories" and "911 Conspiracy Theories" is either supremely audacious or unbelievably stupid. Why have they not come out with reams of evidence, photographs, videos, statements, investigative work, DNA analysis of victims, that could be independently investigated? If they have nothing to hide, why not bring it all out? It is not that victims families would be distressed: I am sure that they would be happy to put this issue to rest once and for all. It is not that state secrets would be revealed: the deed is done and there are questions to be answered. The only explanation for the US State Dept using only these two feeble and questionable sources is clearly reason to believe that this US State Dept webpage is just part of a continuing and pervasive efforts at cover-up.

I would really like to see them prove all the "911 Conspiracy Theories" wrong. I really would. But there is nothing on the US Dept of State webpage that could make me believe that the "official" story much less prove the "911 Conspiracy Theories" are wrong. The sad and horrible truth is that there is much more to be told about 911.

Where are the good guys in the US government? What are you waiting for?


Post a Comment

<< Home