Initially I considered sending some version of the following letter to the editors of Utne Reader, but on a closer look at the context within which the article was published I decided why bother?
”9/11 Conspiracy”
“Towers of Babble”
“the freaks and geeks in the 9/11 Truth movement are on to something- they just don’t know what”
“Why 100 million people are WRONG ABOUT 9/11″
get the gist?
Anyway, here’s a version of an open letter in reply. The nastier versions got left on the cutting room floor.
Dear Utne Reader,
I was wondering whether you might be able to clarify for me whether you consider retired Navy Commander and Top Gun (as well as commercial) pilot Ralph Kolstad to be more of a freak or a geek? Perhaps you would care to categorize Pentagon survivor April Gallop into one of these pat rhyming categories for your readership as well? Presumably retired Air Force colonel and Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering Ph.D Robert Bowman would fall into the geek category in your oversimplistic article subtitle?
When I initially read Paul Constant’s piece in The Stranger ( http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=309650 ) several months ago, I was not terribly impressed. You see, due to long practice I’ve come to recognise certain tendencies in such pieces, no matter how reasonable they may appear to the casual reader.
1.) They never seem to mention very many of the Architects, Engineers, Pilots, Firefighters, Survivors, Professors, military, government and intelligence officials who have questions about the official story of September 11th, 2001. See, for example the site http://patriotsquestion911.com/ for names.
2.) They rarely, if ever, mention all the wargames and exercises which were happening on 9/11.
3.) They rarely, if ever, mention that only about 30% of the questions which the victims’ families wanted answered by the 9/11 Commission (which they had to pressure into happening at all) actually got answered by said commission.
4.) They nearly always seem to find ways to work in (and invite the reader to dismiss) the most controversial alternative theories as to what might have happened on September 11th, without having time or space to look at the Swiss cheese nature of the numerous “official government accounts” of the events of 9/11.
5.) They are nearly always written with a narrative tone of voice which ranges somewhere between superciliousness and condescension. After all, the authors (and editors) always know best.
6.) They rarely, if ever, mention that such things as Homeland Security, a war against Afghanistan and illegal (according to FISA, at least) wiretap rooms were already in the works before 9/11, they were just waiting for an excuse for implementation (look it up).
Should you decide to balance the publication of Constant’s piece with an article by someone such as David Ray Griffin (for instance), I’m sure your readers would find the contrast between the two pieces edifying.
ETA: when I wrote this, I was unable to locate an online version of the article on Utne Reader’s site. I didn’t think it was worthwhile bothering to send this letter to the editors, but since then, I’ve found an online Utne Reader version and added this blog entry as a comment. Feel free to add your own comments over there, if you feel up to registering with them to do so. Also, I corrected an embarrasing apostrophe error. There was more than one victim on 9/11.
Tags: 9/11, 9/11 Truth, Utne Reader, hit piece, Paul Constant, Towers of Babble
January 4, 2008 at 6:10 am
So what’s your stance on the issue? Your intro is pretty vague. Also, how about giving a link to the original post.
January 4, 2008 at 6:11 am
It isn’t clear who wrote this and I want to re-post it in my blog.
January 4, 2008 at 4:28 pm
right on, man.
January 5, 2008 at 8:51 am
I wrote the above, except for the four quotes from various parts (front cover, table of contents and article subtitle) of the Utne Reader publication listed in the title of the blog entry. Issue #145, Jan-Feb. 2008. They have the “Why 100 million people are WRONG ABOUT 9/11″ quote on the front cover. They entitle the article “Towers of Babble”. You may refer to me as either wecanchangetheworld, waterdancer or some type of variant thereof. The author of the article which Utne Reader reprinted is Paul Constant. I couldn’t find an online version of the article through Utne Reader yesterday, but here’s a link to it now that I have found it:
http://utnereader.com/2008-01-01/Politics/Towers-of-Babble.aspx
I thought my stance on the issue was pretty clear in my open letter. If not, you may refer to either http://wecanchangetheworld.wordpress.com/tag/911-truth/ or my postings here: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showuser=77 for further clarifications on my stance on 9/11 Truth (which I’m guessing is “the issue”). Hopefully, this comment answers your questions. If not, ask again.
January 5, 2008 at 11:46 am
“There have always been strange people out there, and something like 9/11 will bring them out in droves. But, when you get past the strange people, you are left with intelligent, educated, functional people with a polite but persistent focus on facts that paint a picture very different from the one the government and the media paint. Facts are pesky things. They don’t go away just because they are inconvenient. History will show that those who insist on a better, more fuller accounting of the events surrounding 9/11 are every bit as correct as those who called for independence from the British Crown.”
March 18, 2008 at 7:03 am
[...] despite the “fact” (it’s in print, so it must be true) that apparently “100 million people are wrong about 9/11“. No, you want “naked YouTube where I can her boobs“, right? So, okay- here you [...]