New York City activist

July 12, 2009

Back from a long hiatus

Hi! I’ve been away for a long time

I’ve been busy with other things over the past year, such as a new job. Also, my views and priorities have changed somewhat. But, over the next few weeks, I will now take the time to post updates on my views, and to do some further research.


Briefly: I still believe that we need a more independent follow-up to the 9/11 Commission, which was compromised by conflicts of interest such as Philip Zelikow’s ties to the Bush administration. And it is clear to me that something is being covered up, for reasons I’ll spell out in future posts. But I don’t claim to know what has been covered up, and my opinions on what is most likely have changed over the past couple of years.

I’m no longer inclined to believe in WTC demolition theories, for reasons I’ll explain in another future post. Also I’m no longer inclined to believe that “9/11 was an inside job” in general.

I don’t rule out certain limited kinds of “inside job” hypotheses as possibilities, but I now think other possibilities are more likely, such as a possible coverup of involvement by officials of one or more “allied” foreign governments such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, to which the U.S. government has deliberately turned a blind eye for whatever reason – possibly just diplomatic reasons, although I suspect there may be more to it than that. Also I think we should take a good hard look at the past history of U.S. government support for Islamist terrorists, which continued after the well-known example of the Soviet-Afghan war. (See US Intelligence Links to Islamic Militancy and Al-Qaeda in the Balkans on the History Commons site.)

In any case, I think we need to demand accountability from our government regarding its handling of the 9/11 attacks.

During the period when I was intensely involved in the 9/11 Truth movement (summer 2007 to spring 2008), I always opposed what I now call grand conspiracy ideology, e.g. claims about overarching, world-micromanaging cabals such as “the Illuminati” and “the New World Order.” Grand conspiracy ideology, which is promoted by some though by no means all people in the 9/11 Truth movement, is historically rooted in religion-based bigotry of one kind or another. The original “Illuminati” scares were rooted in a fear of atheists. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were rooted in a hatred of Jews. The 1980’s version of the “Illuminati” scare vilified primarily Pagans, occultists, and Satanists, plus also Freemasons, as well as atheists and sometimes Jews, plus also feminists, gay rights activists, and environmentalists. The current version is an elaboration on the 1980’s version. And, although grand conspiracy ideology features an alleged evil “Elite,” it has harmed a lot of people who were not elite. The vast majority of the victims of anti-Jewish pogroms were anything but elite. Likewise, the vast majority of the falsely accused in the “Satanic Ritual Abuse” scare were ordinary folks.

I still oppose grand conspiracy ideology and regard it as very dangerous. I would like very much to hear from others who oppose it and who are interested in debunking it.

I also believe that the debunking of grand conspiracy ideology — and debunking of the more outlandish 9/11 inside-job theories too, for that matter — can be a lot more effective when combined with credible calls for government accountability regarding 9/11. Some debunkers, such as Chip Berlet, have said that they agree with the call for an independent investigation of 9/11, on the grounds that the government should be held accountable even if no one in the government was guilty of anything worse than incompetence. But I haven’t yet seen Chip Berlet spell out, in detail, the reasons why he thinks a new investigation is necessary, or the particular questions he thinks should be investigated. In my opinion, debunkers such as Berlet would be more effective — i.e., more likely to be taken seriously by people who believe in 9/11 inside-job theories — if, in addition to debunking whatever they wish to debunk, they would also devote some significant amount of time and space (at least one full page) to making the case for a new investigation, thereby establishing some common ground with those people whom they wish to influence. Doing so would also set a positive example, which is more likely to be effective than just raining on someone’s parade.

More generally, I would like to see more civil discussion of 9/11-related issues by people on all sides. People in the 9/11 Truth movement need to slow down on jumping to the conclusion that people who disagree with them are disinfo agents. On the other hand, people in the debunker camp need to cut out the amateur psychoanalysis. People on all sides need to realize that insults, name-calling, and other ad hominems just make one’s own side look dogmatic and unreasonable.

An example of what I mean by amateur psychoanalysis, on the part of some debunkers, is the claim that inside-job theory believers somehow find that belief “comforting.” Hello? Most people do NOT find it at all “conforting” to believe that one’s own government has murdered thousands of its own citizens! The only people who might find this “comforting” would be people who already believed in a grand conspiracy ideology before being introduced to 9/11 inside job theories. In my experience, people in general do tend to be “conforted” by having their own worldview confirmed, whatever their worldview might be. But, for most other people, the process of being convinced of 9/11 inside job theories is anything but comforting.

I’ve rambled a bit. Over the next few days, I plan to write some posts which will:

1) Make the case for an independent investigation of 9/11 without advocating inside job theories.

2) Explain why I’m no longer inclined to believe in WTC demolition theories

3) Do some debunking of grand conspiracy ideologies.

I hope I can find some people interested in joining me in #3. I consider grand conspiracy ideology to be extremely dangerous, being the type of “conspiracy theory” which has, historically, caused the most harm to the most people.

Advertisements

5 Comments »

  1. Now, Diane, I thought you claimed in the past to be scientific or that using a scientific approach was the way forward. How can you claim to be a 9/11 truth activist for a few years and thoroughly familiarize yourself with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition (which has only gotten more and more solid with A&E 9/11 Truth and the 700 plus architects and engineers that have joined so far, the recent publication of a peer reviewed scientific paper on thermite, etc.), and then suddenly claim that you no longer see any evidence of controlled demolition because you are now pushing the Pakistan/Saudi Arabia angle on 9/11? To many people, Diane, it would appear that you are taking a backwards approach. You seem to be choosing the conclusion first – i.e., that the ‘islamofascist menace’ was really behind 9/11, and then making the evidence fit that conclusion – i.e., controlled demolition is out of the question because it wouldn’t be compatible with the ‘Pakistan/Saudi Arabia did it’ conclusion.

    So, Diane, you now cover your eyes and don’t see all the hundreds of explosives in the videos, you no longer see that all 3 WTC towers fell in such a way that could only be accomplished with controlled demolition (immediate free fall collapse, symmetrically, pulverized concrete BEFORE it hit the ground, molten metal in the basements for months afterwards, etc.) as well as over a hundred firefighters witnessing synchronized explosions nocking out key structural columns, etc.

    You’re going to have a hard time getting people to take you seriously, Diane.

    Comment by nanothermite — July 14, 2009 @ 9:29 am | Reply

  2. Perhaps you have allowed JREFers and other phony sophists to bamboozle you with talk about “buckling columns” and “failing welded connections” and “horizontal members becoming unshored” and blah blah blah…when none of that can explain why the LOWER portions of the towers that were UNDAMAGED and built to hold up 20 times the weight of the tops of the buildings stood for almost 30 years before 9/11 and held up not only the top of the buildings just fine, but held up just fine in the face of hurricane force windstorms that had put way more stress on the buildings than anything on 9/11

    and then suddenly on 9/11 could no longer hold up what it had held up for almost 30 years before that morning? And violated the laws of physics by letting the tops of the buildings go through the paths of MOST RESISTANCE INSTEAD OF FALLING TO THE SIDES? That is high school physics, Diane. You can clearly see in the videos that the lower portions of the buildings did not “buckle, bend, fail, become unshored”, etc. The lower portions of the buildings were perfectly fine and then suddenly BLOWN TO KINGDOM COME WITH SYNCHRONIZED EXPLOSIONS. You can’t accomplish that without carefully placed and synchronized demolition charges.

    Comment by nanothermite — July 14, 2009 @ 5:14 pm | Reply

  3. See the link below for my reply to “nanothermite.” (This comment is an edited pingback.)

    – Diane

    Pingback by Preliminary reply to “nanaothermite” « New York City activist — July 14, 2009 @ 10:26 pm | Reply

  4. Well, Diane, I’ve read your reply above and I’m not very impressed with your reasoning. I’m sad to see that you appear to be swallowing the professional debunkers’ arguments whole.

    How can you look at the close-up videos of the WTC towers being blown up with explosives, squibs and all, just like other videos of buildings being demolished that I’m sure you’ve seen, and not see…explosives? What on Earth would cause huge steel beams to be ejected up and out up to 600 feet away if it was just a gravitational collapse? Think about it, Diane. Watch those videos again and forget about all the ridiculous BS sophistry that the debunkers use to explain away every single obvious sign of explosives, and try to use your own eyes and intelligence. What happened to you that you don’t trust your own eyes and must rely on other “professionals'” opinions to discern reality that should be so obvious for you to see for yourself?

    If “professional” astronomers were to tell you that the moon is actually green, would you then be inclined to believe that it is green despite what your own eyes tell you? Would you wait until a consensus of professional astronomers discussed it and came out with a final report stating what color the moon is before you would be comfortable deciding what color it is?

    I have to wonder if your problem is one of cognitive dissonance, or denial, or an inability to discern debunkers’ BS arguments from basic physics and basic logic, etc., or if there is something else going on…

    Comment by nanothermite — July 15, 2009 @ 7:30 am | Reply

  5. You wrote: “How can you look at the close-up videos of the WTC towers being blown up with explosives, squibs and all,”

    I never was convinced by the “squibs” argument. Please see my older post Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please.

    As for the rest of it: I don’t have time for this discussion right now, but I’ll get around to it sometime in the next couple of weeks.

    Comment by Diane — July 16, 2009 @ 10:41 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: