After All These Years, Are 9/11 Conspiracists Vindicated?


Suverans2's picture

Maybe I don't know how to read, but it appears to me that Alexander Cockburn thinks the 9/11 conspiracists, which he packaged along with JFK and RFK conspiricists, have NOT been "vindicated", i.e. proven right.

Semmes's picture

Here we go with the big lie again. Cockburn holds his integrity cheap. He alludes to known mainstreamed governmental cover ups and conspiracies to gain trust and then puts out the neo-con bull shit. This article is pure disinformation. I hope he didn't sell out cheap or all least got the negatives and all the copies of the photographs.

I suppose we should scrap our navy. One missile hit or as in WWII a Kamikaze hit and our ships will melt to the gunnel's.

wkmac's picture

Cockburn is not anti-state by any means so as I read him, I keep this in mind. Beyond that, I do agree on the idea of state ineptness which he seems to prove somewhat giving several examples. But then on that same note I'd ask Cockburn why he therefore holds such trust in the institution of the State to begin with in the face of such ineptness proof. If they are that inept to even carry out simple conspiracies, how can they then be trusted to carry out simple gov't central planning and dare we not even speak of the more complex things?

I respect Cockburn and Counterpunch as it's a daily read for me along with STR but this one had elements that left me scratching my head. And I don't subscribe to the many 9/11 theories (I think the damn things collapsed eg no explosives) but I'm not closed minded to consider the many questions. I mean I do have to acknowledge the longshot odds of 2 planes hitting these building in such a way as for both to fail and come down in the same way. I do think it beat the odds but I don't discount at all people who question that. I see that as a healthy thing unlike Cockburn who as I see it right now would disagree. Would 10 years after Pearl Harbor have Cockburn slamming Dec. 7th conspiracies of FDR knowing when 60 years later he admits FDR probably did know? What will a Cockburn in 50 years say about 9/11? Why in 1951' you are a nutjob and now Cockburn's remarks are considered acceptable and even intelligent?

Cockburn is fair in some criticisms of 9/11 theories and especially the rabidness of it's disciples. But I think what really scares the schitt out of Cockburn is the poll numbers of people who just no longer believe blindly what they are told by the State. This IMO is at the core of what panics Cockburn but then he can always turn that into a conspiracy to sell to the Counterpunch readers!

Evan's picture

I'm skeptical of all the explanations I've heard. I'm not a believer in any of the official or unofficial conspiracy theories. And I'm especially skeptical of skepticism.

Semmes's picture

The way I analyzed 911 and all the stories is as if it were something I was going to invest my money in. Whom are the players, who is putting out information and explanations. Who do they work for or connected with? What is their agenda? Who are the winners and losers in this situation. Why is Cockburn quoting the opinion of an expert connected to Wolfowitz while dismissing the opinions of at least 1500 who were willing to put their professional reputations on the line without payment as merely a small percentage of engineers world wide. He states that a huge crew would have had to enter the buildings during regular business hours to wire it up even though it is a known fact that in the weeks prior on the weekends there was "elevator maintenance" with large numbers of people with materials going in and out requiring the shut down of security. There was a group of Israeli Art students actually living in one of the towers in the weeks prior. Cockburns' other expert is a aeronautical engineer and ordinance expert. So what. You would think he would consult one of the specialized companies in the world to are involved in large project demolition. The part about structural steel going soft is not worthy of comment. He also expresses the standard canard that no conspiracy could exist without somebody leaking it. What about the Manhattan project, D-Day, Gulf of Tonkin, assorted assassinations......on and on. The man is not stupid or sloppy, he is dishonest. He wouldn't get my money.

Suverans2's picture

I agree, Semmes, spend just a little time looking at some of the non-governmental research that has gone into 9/11 and one will come away with extreme skepticism regarding the gubbermints explanations. Then add to that that Fires Have Never Caused (any other) Skyscrapers to Collapse and one would have to be much more than "stupid or sloppy" to dismiss ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHT architects and engineers, i.e. non-conspiracy theorists, "willing to put their professional reputations on the line without payment", who apparently think that it was an "inside job".

Semmes's picture

I have spent at lot of time. I am in the choir. The NIST report is as good as the Warren Comission report. I was only trying to say that Cockburn is a tool. I only addressed some of his points.

I have seen otherwise intelligent people see the BBC footage where the reporter/newsreader announces WTC 7 has collapsed 15 or 20 minutes before it goes down. These intelligent people don't believe their own lying eyes and do cartwheels trying to explain why that can't mean what it means.

People are so brainwashed and locked into their fairy tale world view you can't even spoon feed them facts in small doses without the cognitive dissidence creating an angry reaction.

The real importance of 911 is about the Wars we are fighting that have bankrupted the country, the rise of the Police State here and loss of our liberty.

I guess the real story here is about slaves that make their own chains.

Suverans2's picture

"I agree, Semmes..." I would add, however, that the evidence put forth by the Architect and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is more logical, and therefor more credible, than that of the NIST and the Warren Comission reports, combined.

Samarami's picture

It is difficult to argue sensibly on this. "Government", by it's very nature, is conspiracy of the most gigantic and heinous variety.

The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam

Suverans2's picture

And, apparently, the enormity of the lie makes it credible.