Joseph Wansala declaimed on behalf of somebody else:
>My challenge is not just for any naysaying "anti-conspiracy" advocate (from
> the Left, or from anyone from any point along the political spectrum) to
read
> the material. My challenge, make it a dare, is to present a thorough
counter-
> case for the events of September 11, as well as an accurate analysis of
the
> global war that has been waged in its name.
Huh? One would have to be insane to rise to that challenge. The amount of time one would have to dedicate to debunking the theories of a few wackos - especially as these wackos all subscribe to different, contradictory theories. Even if one did come up with a killer, knockdown argument - they'd be unlikely to acknowledge it. Ultimately what these internet paranoics think is irrelivant.
You can tell most of these theorists are crazy, by the way that they try to fit the facts, and inconsistencies to their own, pet, theories about how the world operates (Jews run it, the CIA runs it, the global financial cabal runs it). I'd also perhaps be inclined to take them a little more seriously if they'd admit doubt, or uncertainty.
eg. perhaps this happened, because or: we don't know enough to speculate, though this inconsitency is curious
Or howabout: Its odd that the passports were found so easily. Followed by an investigation into how likely that was (without jumping to conclusions in advance).
AND IF THEY'D STOP Assigning motives to people they know nothing about.
> Immediately, Left voices fell into line with the Bush administration's
> elaborate fabrications and pretexts of a "war on terrorism",
That's bullshit. The responses were a lot more varied, and from some, a lot more nuanced (Robert Fisk among them). I suspect you know this, but are deliberately ignoring it because it doesn't fit your "thesis".
> The obvious falsehoods have not been touched since
> the day, and remain largely unaddressed and unsolved.
I'm sorry, I've seen all the obvious inconsistencies addressed, or at least mentioned. Some have even been explained (Greg Palast, for example). Not addressed as much as I'd like, or as mainstream as I'd like, but addressed. I'm not sure what you mean by "obvious falsehoods" - though I suspect they are only obvious to you.
> A now-classic example of this slippery Left treatment of 9/11 is
exemplified
> by Noam Chomsky in his book "9-11", which even begins with the ridiculous
> declaration that 9/11 was "the first time the US has been attacked by
> foreigners on its own soil since the War of 1812"---this despite no
> investigation of actual fact. Chomsky has continued to deny 9/11 as
> "hopelessly implausiable internet theory", even as the Bush adminstration
> itself and corporate media organs have increasingly admitted 9/11 coverup,
> even forcing the creation of a number of so-called investigative panels to
> quiet the controversy today.
I have read this paragraph three times, and still have no idea what you're accusing Chomsky of. That's a very confused paragraph.
> If 9/11 were as easily dismissable as Fisk asserts, then what explains all
> of the official scrambling going in? Why is the Bush administration and
all
> of its subsidiaries refusing to come clean? Why are they refusing to even
> hand over documents to Congressional fix-it officials?
He wasn't dismissing it, he was merely dismissing the crazy theories (each theory, btw, fitting perfectly the paranoid fantasies of those who proclaim them. Always a bad sign for any theory - mainstream, or underground). He acknowledged that there were inconsistencies and unanswered questions. Though these are of varying importance. Ultimately who cares whether that plane crashed, or was shot down. It doesn't matter, and a coverup is a pretty minor sin. On the otherhand the Israeli spies, and the rushing of the Bin Laden family back to Saudi Arabia, are bigger sins. Another sign of the kook, is an inability to discern relevence, and significance of events.
Normally I just ignore these things, but its been a bad week. Sigh.
Cian