ReOpen911.info : Site d'information sur les attentats du 11 septembre 2001

Annonce

Les propos tenus sur ce forum n'engagent que leurs auteurs et n'impliquent en aucun cas leur approbation par l'ensemble du mouvement (plus d'infos). L'association ReOpen911 est une initiative citoyenne et bénévole indépendante de tout mouvement politique, philosophique et religieux.

Merci de soigner vos messages, restez courtois et constructifs. Un message ne respecte pas le règlement ? Signalez-le en utilisant la fonction "signaler" en bas de chaque message. Toute discussion sur la modération ne doit se faire QUE par MP, et non sur le forum...

Vous pouvez contacter l'équipe de modération à l'adresse : moderation [ at ] reopen911.info

Vous n'êtes pas identifié.

#1 24-03-2010 16:32:29

Dominique LW
Membre de Soutien
Lieu: Nancy
Date d'inscription: 29-11-2006
Messages: 382

Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

Sur Counterpunch, le site d'Alexander Cockburn, auteur d'un article à charge contre le mouvement
pour la vérité dans le Monde Diplomatique, vient de paraitre un article de Paul Craig Roberts sur
la vérité et la propagande :

Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty With It : http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03242010.html

Extrait :

America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.

A. Cockburn, l'éditeur de Counterpunch, aurait-il changé d'avis sur le 11/9 ?

-----------------------------------------------

Good-Bye
Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty With It

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.

Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.

Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”

Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.

Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.

Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.

Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. “Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by “the New Economy,” a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this “new economy” are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.

Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of “the New Economy.”

And not only economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. Recently we have had reports of medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted “studies” that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the “studies.”

The Council of Europe is investigating the drug companies’ role in hyping a false swine flu pandemic in order to gain billions of dollars in sales of the vaccine.

The media helped the US military hype its recent Marja offensive in Afghanistan, describing Marja as a city of 80,000 under Taliban control. It turns out that Marja is not urban but a collection of village farms.

And there is the global warming scandal, in which  NGOs. the UN, and the nuclear industry colluded in concocting  a doomsday scenario in order to create profit in pollution.

Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.

Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.

I remember when, following CIA director William Colby’s testimony before the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan issued executive orders preventing the CIA and U.S. black-op groups from assassinating foreign leaders.  In 2010 the US Congress was told by Dennis Blair, head of national intelligence, that the US now assassinates its own citizens in addition to foreign leaders.

When Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that US citizens no longer needed to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted of a capital crime, just murdered on suspicion  alone of being a “threat,” he wasn’t impeached. No investigation pursued. Nothing happened. There was no Church Committee. In the mid-1970s the CIA got into trouble for plots to kill Castro. Today it is American citizens who are on the hit list. Whatever objections there might be don’t carry any weight. No one in government is in any trouble over the assassination of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government.

As an economist, I am astonished that the American economics profession has no awareness whatsoever that the U.S. economy has been destroyed by the offshoring of U.S. GDP to overseas countries. U.S. corporations, in pursuit of absolute advantage or lowest labor costs and maximum CEO “performance bonuses,” have moved the production of goods and services marketed to Americans to China, India, and elsewhere abroad. When I read economists describe offshoring as free trade based on comparative advantage, I realize that there is no intelligence or integrity in the American economics profession.

Intelligence and integrity have been purchased by money. The transnational or global U.S. corporations pay multi-million dollar compensation packages to top managers, who achieve these “performance awards” by replacing U.S. labor with foreign labor. While Washington worries about “the Muslim threat,” Wall Street, U.S. corporations and “free market” shills destroy the U.S. economy and the prospects of tens of millions of Americans.

Americans, or most of them, have proved to be putty in the hands of the police state.

Americans have bought into the government’s claim that security requires the suspension of civil liberties and accountable government. Astonishingly, Americans, or most of them, believe that civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process, protect “terrorists,” and not themselves. Many also believe that the Constitution is a tired old document that prevents government from exercising the kind of police state powers necessary to keep Americans safe and free.

Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.

I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week’s first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American “mainstream media.”

For the last six years I have been banned from the “mainstream media.” My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.

For years I was a mainstay at the Washington Times, producing credibility for the Moony newspaper as a Business Week columnist, former Wall Street Journal editor, and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. But when I began criticizing Bush’s wars of aggression, the order came down to Mary Lou Forbes to cancel my column.

The American corporate does not serve the truth.  It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government.

America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.

These trillion dollar wars have created financing problems for Washington’s deficits and threaten the U.S. dollar’s role as world reserve currency. The wars and the pressure that the budget deficits put on the dollar’s value have put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. Former Goldman Sachs chairman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is after these protections for the elderly. Fed chairman Bernanke is also after them. The Republicans are after them as well. These protections are called “entitlements” as if they are some sort of welfare that people have not paid for in payroll taxes all their working lives.

With over 21 per cent unemployment as measured by the methodology of 1980, with American jobs, GDP, and technology having been given to China and India, with war being Washington’s greatest commitment, with the dollar over-burdened with debt, with civil liberty sacrificed to the “war on terror,” the liberty and prosperity of the American people have been thrown into the trash bin of history.

The militarism of the U.S. and Israeli states, and Wall Street and corporate greed, will now run their course. As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off.

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

Hors ligne

 

#2 24-03-2010 16:55:48

fyoul
Administrateur
Lieu: Tours
Date d'inscription: 01-12-2008
Messages: 790

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

Je me permet, rapidement :

America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.

Le destin des US fut sellé qd le peuple et les mouvements anti-guerre ont accepté la théorie du gouvernement sur la conspiration du 11/9 [NdT : 19 pirates de l'air patati patata]. Cette théorie donnée par le gouvernement est contredite par de nombreuses évidences. Néanmoins, cet évènement majeur, qui a lancé les USA dans d'interminables guerres agressives et un état policier, est un sujet d'investigation tabou dans les médias. Il est inutile de se plaindre de la guerre et de l'état policier quand on accepte les rudiments sur lesquels ils sont basés.

Je l'ai lu en diagonale, mais cet article semble particulièrement à charge envers "la nouvelle économie" et la suprématie de l'argent sur la vérité. Venant de Paul Craig Roberts, çà donne un poids certain aux mots.

Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.
Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.

Partout où l'on regarde, la vérité a succombé à l'argent.
Partout où l'argent n'est pas suffisant pour enterrer la vérité, l'ignorance, la propagande, et la "mémoire courte" finissent le travail [NdT : de sape de la vérité].

Dernière modification par fyoul (24-03-2010 17:01:03)


Administrateur du forum
Groupe local Tours

Hors ligne

 

#3 24-03-2010 17:14:36

fyoul
Administrateur
Lieu: Tours
Date d'inscription: 01-12-2008
Messages: 790

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

Je propose pour une news, même si cet article n'est pas directement lié au terrorisme, il parle clairement de problèmes concernant la Vérité, le corruption par l'argent, et le traitement des médias. Il explique en effet à la fin de l'article que malgré avoir été pdt 15 ans éditeur au New York Times, pigiste pour de nombreux journaux internationaux bien réputés, et aussi assistant secrétaire au trésor, il est aujourd'hui banni des "mainstream media" ... pour avoir protesté contre les guerres d'agressions de Bush.

Je trouve ce texte puissant, dans la main d'une telle personne. cool


Administrateur du forum
Groupe local Tours

Hors ligne

 

#4 24-03-2010 18:02:50

bluerider1
Lieu: Europe
Date d'inscription: 01-05-2007
Messages: 1725
Site web

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

c'est OK en NEWS, et comme le fait remarquer DLW (hello le Nancéen, mon brother est en train de tout vous refaire tout le quartier des casernes, ca va être bô!):

c'est une évolution ENORME de counterpunch:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11282006.html

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2006/12/COCKBURN/14270

http://www.voltairenet.org/article142333.html

http://www.mondialisation.ca/index.php? … p;aid=2816


"Presque toujours, nos contradicteurs ne répondent pas aux objections que nous leur avons opposées, mais aux sottises qu'ils nous prêtent." François MAURIAC (tout le monde est concerné, y compris les "alternativistes") Bluerider / groupes locaux, reopennews, évenements

Hors ligne

 

#5 24-03-2010 20:11:17

Zorg
Membre Actif Asso
Date d'inscription: 18-07-2006
Messages: 4903

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

A noter que Paul Craig Roberts est un habitué de Counterpunch :
http://www.google.com/search?q=Paul+Cra … rpunch.org

Et Counterpunch a déja publié des articles sur les mensonges de l'administration bush à propos du 11 09 :

"Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress and the 9/11 Commission?
9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI" :
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

Et n'oublions pas qu'Alexander Cockburn n'a pas hésité en 2008 a publier un article sur les agents israeliens qui auraient été sur la piste des pirates de l’air avant le 11 septembre 2001 :
http://contreinfo.info/article.php3?id_article=534

Ce qui est pour le moins courageux tant le sujet est propice aux accusations d'antisémitisme...

Le mieux serait de demander à Cockburn ce qu'il pense à présent de la remise en question de la TO.
A défaut, on peut peut-être demander à Paul Craig Roberts si la position de Cockburn a évolué ces dernières années :
PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Je laisse le clavier aux fines plumes anglophones... big_smile


" La propagande est aux démocraties ce que la violence est aux dictatures." (Noam Chomsky)

Un Jeudi Noir de l'Information : le documentaire qui démonte les manipulations de Canal+, Jeudi Investigation, Tac Presse...
ReOpen911 répond à Noam Chomsky et Jean Bricmont

Hors ligne

 

#6 24-03-2010 22:06:46

Dominique LW
Membre de Soutien
Lieu: Nancy
Date d'inscription: 29-11-2006
Messages: 382

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

Salut bluerider,

Je vais regarder les travaux à Blandan ...

A+

Hors ligne

 

#7 25-03-2010 01:12:02

bluerider1
Lieu: Europe
Date d'inscription: 01-05-2007
Messages: 1725
Site web

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

merci Zorg...

le chapeau de l'article s'épaissit... il va falloir passer de celui de John Steed à celui d'Arsène Lupin!

on va écrire, tu as raison.

Dernière modification par bluerider1 (25-03-2010 01:12:37)


"Presque toujours, nos contradicteurs ne répondent pas aux objections que nous leur avons opposées, mais aux sottises qu'ils nous prêtent." François MAURIAC (tout le monde est concerné, y compris les "alternativistes") Bluerider / groupes locaux, reopennews, évenements

Hors ligne

 

#8 25-03-2010 12:45:32

bluerider1
Lieu: Europe
Date d'inscription: 01-05-2007
Messages: 1725
Site web

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

au fait: à lire sa dernière phrase, c'est son dernier article....

il doit s'exprimer aujourd'hui à la radio d'alex jones....

on va bien voir ce qu'il dit...

snif... déjà que les gens brillants et non alignés ne sont pas nombreux....


"Presque toujours, nos contradicteurs ne répondent pas aux objections que nous leur avons opposées, mais aux sottises qu'ils nous prêtent." François MAURIAC (tout le monde est concerné, y compris les "alternativistes") Bluerider / groupes locaux, reopennews, évenements

Hors ligne

 

#9 03-09-2011 16:03:07

Zorg
Membre Actif Asso
Date d'inscription: 18-07-2006
Messages: 4903

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

Heuuu... apparemment la position de COCKBURN n'a guère évolué :


CounterPunch - 02 09 2011 :



The 9/11 Conspiracists: Vindicated After All These Years?
by ALEXANDER COCKBURN

We’re homing in on the tenth anniversary of the destruction  of the Wall Street Trade Towers  and the attack on the Pentagon.  One in seven Americans and one in four among  those aged 16-24, (so a recent poll commissioned by the BBC tells us)  believe that there was a vast conspiracy in which the U.S. government was involved.  But across those ten years have the charges that it was an “inside job” –– a favored phrase of the self-styled “truthers”  — received any serious buttress?

The answer is no.

Did the Trade Towers fall because they were badly built as a consequence of corruption, incompetence, regulatory evasions by the Port Authority, and because they were struck by huge planes loaded with jet fuel. No, shout the conspiracists, they “pancaked” because Dick Cheney’s agents–scores of them–methodically planted demolition charges in the preceding days inserting the explosives in the relevant floors of three vast buildings, (moving day after day among the unsuspecting office workers), then on 9/11 activating the detonators. It was a conspiracy of thousands, all of whom–party to mass murder–have held their tongues ever since.

What has been the goal of the 9/11 conspiracists? They ask questions, yes, but they never answer them. They never put forward an overall scenario of the alleged conspiracy. They say that’s not up to them. So who is it up to? Whom do they expect to answer their questions? When answers are put forward, they are dismissed as fabrications or they simply rebound with another question.  Like most cultic persuasions they excitedly invoke important converts to their faith and the “1500 architects and engineers in the USA” who say the NIST official report is not thorough and needs another investigation. It’s a tiny proportion of the overall members of their profession. At least  80 per cent of faculty economists in the US believe stoutly in long-discredited theories that have blighted the lives of millions around the world for decades. Their numbers don’t equate with intelligence, let along conclusive analysis.

The 9/11 conspiracists seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant. Their treatment of eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence is whimsical. Apparent anomalies that seem to nourish their theories are brandished excitedly; testimony that undermines their theories–like witnesses of a large plane hitting the Pentagon — is dismissed.

Many conspiracists say it wasn’t a plane but a missile. (Other conspiracists denounce the “no plane” Pentagon as wacko.) Eye-witnesses of a large plane hitting the Pentagon — are contemptuously brushed aside.

There are some photos of the impact of the “object” — i.e. the Boeing 757, flight 77 — that seem to show the sort of hole a missile might make. Ergo, 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon. It WAS a missile. It wasn’t smoke in some photographs obscuring a larger rupture in the fortified Pentagon wall.
On this last matter, Chuck Spinney, now retired after years of brilliant government service exposing the Pentagon’s budgetary outrages, tells me that “there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon — they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both — stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows. I knew two people who were on the plane. One was ID’d by dental remains found in the Pentagon.”

In fact hundreds of people saw the plane — people who know the difference between a plane and a cruise missile. The wreckage of the plane was hauled out from the site. Why does the obvious have to be proved? Would those who were wounded or who lost friends and colleagues that day assist in the cover up of a missile strike? Why risk using a missile, when you had a plane in the air and ­- to take one bizarre construct of the conspiracists — had successfully crashed (by remote control!) two into much more difficult targets–the Trade Towers?

This doesn’t faze the conspiracists. They’re immune to any reality check. Spinney “worked for the government.” They switched the dental records. The Boeing 757 was flown to Nebraska for a rendez-vous with President Bush, who shot the passengers, burned the bodies on the tarmac and gave Spinney’s friend’s teeth to Dick Cheney to drop through a hole in his trousers amid the debris in the Pentagon.

Of course there are conspiracies. The allegations that Saddam Hussein had WMD amounted to just such a one. I think there is strong evidence that FDR did have knowledge that a Japanese naval force in the north Pacific was going to launch an attack on Pearl Harbor. It’s quite possible Roosevelt thought it would be a relatively mild assault and thought it would be the final green light to get the US into the war.

It’s entirely plausible to assume that the FBI, US military intelligence, and the CIA, — as has just been rather convincingly  claimed again in the latter instance — had penetrated the Al Qaeda team planning the 9/11 attacks; intelligence reports piled up in various Washington bureaucracies pointing to the impending onslaught and even the manner in which it might be carried out.
The history of intelligence operations is profuse with example of successful intelligence collection, but also fatal slowness to act on the intelligence, along with eagerness not to compromise the security and future usefulness of the informant, who has to prove his own credentials by even pressing for prompt action by the plotters. Sometime an undercover agent will actually propose an action, either to deflect efforts away from some graver threat, or to put the plotters in a position where they can be caught red-handed.

There is not the slightest need to postulate pre-placed explosive charges to explain why the towers collapsed at near free fall speeds. As Pierre Sprey, a former plane and weapons designer who knows a great deal about explosions, told me:

    “1. Any demolitions expert concocting a plan to hit a tall building with an airplane and then use pre-placed explosives to UNDETECTABLY ensure the collapse of the building would never place the explosives 20, 30 and 60 floors below the impact point. Obviously, he would put the explosives on one or more floors as close as possible to the planned impact level.

    “2. It is inconceivable that our demolitions expert would time his surreptitious explosions to occur HOURS after the aircraft impact. He couldn’t possibly be absolutely certain that the impact fires would even last an hour. Quite the opposite: to mask the booster explosions, he’d time them to follow right on the heels of the impact.

    “3. To ensure collapse of a major building requires very sizable demolition charges, charges that are large enough to do a lot more than emit the “puffs of smoke” cited as evidence for the explosives hypothesis. I’ve seen both live and filmed explosive building demolitions. Each explosion is accompanied by a very visible shower of heavy rubble and a dense cloud of smoke and dust. Just that fact alone makes the explosives hypothesis untenable; no demolitions expert in the world would be willing to promise his client that he could bring down a tall building with explosions guaranteed to be indistinguishable from the effects of an aircraft impact.”

Herman Soifer, a retired structural engineer, summarized the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly, in a letter to me, remarking that since he had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction he was able to explain the collapses to his wife a few hours after the buildings went down.

    “The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow. Tubes can be very efficient structures, strong and economical. The Trade Center tubes effectively resisted vertical loads, wind loads and vibrations and could probably have done very well against earthquakes. However, the relatively thin skin of the hollow tube must be braced at intervals to prevent local buckling of the skin under various possible loads, otherwise the tube itself can go out of shape and lose its strength.

    “For their interior bracing, the thin-walled tubes of the Trade Center towers depended primarily on the interior floors being tied to the outer wall shells. These floor beam structures were basically open web joists, adequate for the floor loads normally to be expected. These joist ends rested on steel angle clips attached to the outer walls.

    “As the floors at the level of airplane impact caught fire, the open web joists, which could not be expected to resist such fires, softened under the heat, sagged and pulled away from their attachments to the walls. Their weight and the loads they were carrying, caused them to drop onto the next lower floor, which was then carrying double loads also becoming exposed to the heat. Then that floor collapsed, and so it went. But as the floors dropped, they no longer served as bracing for the thin-walled main tubes.

This loss of bracing permitted the walls to buckle outward in successive sections and thus the house of cards effect.”

High grade steel can bend disastrously under extreme heat. The types of steel used in the WTC Towers (plain carbon, and vanadium) lose steel lose half their strength when heated to about 570 C , and even more as temperatures rise, as they did in WTC 1 and 2, to 1100 C.

The conspiracists’ last card is the collapse of WTC building number 7 some hours after the morning attacks. But here again, as with the other two buildings, the explanations offered by the US government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are more than adequate. Collapse was caused by the rupturing of the building’s metal framework due to the thermal expansion of its floor beams, which were heated by uncontrolled fires because the water main that supplied the building’s fire suppression system had been cut by the collapse of WTC 1.

The NIST team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a ‘sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,’ yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos. Sound at 130 to 140 decibels is about as loud as humans can tolerate, beyond this power one is really encountering a blast wave, a jump in pressure that delivers sensible force. Examples of loud sounds and their effects include: a jet engine at 100 meters (110-140 dB), hearing damage due to short term exposure, for example front row at a rock concert (120 dB), threshold of pain (130 dB), a rifle being fired at 1 meter (140 dB).

As discussed in Wayne Barrett and Dan Collin’s excellent book Grand Illusion, about Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, helicopter pilots radioed warnings nine minutes before the final collapse that the South Tower might well go down and, repeatedly, as much as 25 minutes before the North Tower’s fall.

What Barrett and Collins brilliantly showed are the actual corrupt conspiracies on Giuliani’s watch: the favoritism to Motorola which saddled the firemen with radios that didn’t work; the ability of the Port Authority to skimp on fire protection, the mayor’s catastrophic failure in the years before 9/11/2001 to organize an effective unified emergency command that would have meant that cops and firemen could have communicated; that many firemen wouldn’t have unnecessarily entered the Towers; that people in the Towers wouldn’t have been told by 911 emergency operators to stay in place; and that firemen could have heard the helicopter warnings and the final Mayday messages that prompted most of the NYPD men to flee the Towers.

That’s the real political world, in which Giuliani and others have never been held accountable. The conspiracists disdained the real world because they wanted to promote Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons to an elevated status as the Arch Demons of American history, instead of being just one more team running the American empire, a team of more than usual stupidity and incompetence (characteristics I personally favor in imperial leaders). Actually, what Bush and Cheney never demonstrated was the slightest degree of competence to pull anything like this off. They couldn’t even manufacture weapons of mass destruction after US troops had invaded Iraq, and when any box labeled “WMD” would have been happily photographed by the embedded U.S. press as conclusive testimony. Arch-demon Cheney and his retinue of neo-cons couldn’t even contrive a provocation sufficient to justify his aim of waging war on Iran or giving Israel the green light to do so.  Each day he gnashed his teeth as Bush, Condoleezza Rice and the Joint Chiefs of Staff foiled his machinations.

At least what Obama may have done is remind the left – at least those not forever besotted — that Bush and Cheney are not that much different from the politicians and overlords of U.S. foreign policy who preceded them or followed them.

9/11 conspiracism, perhaps at last somewhat on the wane, penetrated deep into the American left. It has also been widespread on the libertarian and populist right, but that is scarcely surprising, since the American populist right instinctively mistrusts government to a far greater degree than the left, and matches conspiracies to its demon of preference, whether the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Black Helicopters or the Jews and now Muslims.

These days a dwindling number of leftists learn their political economy from Marx. Into the theoretical and strategic void has crept a diffuse, peripatic conspiracist view of the world that tends to locate ruling class devilry not in the crises of capital accumulation, or the falling rate of profit, or inter-imperial competition, but in locale (the Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg, Ditchley, Davos) or supposedly “rogue” agencies, with the CIA still at the head of the list. The 9/11 “conspiracy”, or “inside job”, is the Summa of all this foolishness.

One trips over a fundamental idiocy of the 9/11 conspiracists in the first paragraph of the opening page of the book by one of their high priests, David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor. “In many respects,” Griffin writes, “the strongest evidence provided by critics of the official account involves the events of 9/11 itself In light of standard procedures for dealing with hijacked airplanes not one of these planes should have reached its target, let alone all three of them.”

The operative word here is “should”. A central characteristic of the conspiracists is that they have a devout, albeit preposterous belief in American efficiency. Many of them start with the racist premise–frequently voiced in as many words in their writings — that “Arabs in caves” weren’t capable of the mission. They believe that military systems should work they way Pentagon press flacks and aerospace salesmen say they should work. They believe that at 8.14 am, when AA flight 11 switched off its radio and transponder, an FAA flight controller should have called the National Military Command center and NORAD. They believe, citing reverently (this is high priest Griffin, who has written no less than ten books on 9/11) “the US Air Force’s own website,” that an F-15 could have intercepted AA flight 11 “by 8.24, and certainly no later than 8.30.”

They appear to have read no military history, which is too bad because if they did they’d know that minutely planned operations–let alone by-the-book responses to an unprecedented emergency — screw up with monotonous regularity, by reason of stupidity, cowardice, venality and all the other failings, not excepting sudden changes in the weather.

History is generous with such examples. According to the minutely prepared plans of the Strategic Air Command, an impending Soviet attack would have prompted the missile siloes in North Dakota to open, and the ICBMs to arc towards Moscow and kindred targets. The four test launches actually attempted all failed, whereupon the SAC gave up testing. Was it badly designed equipment, human incompetence, defense contractor venality or conspiracy?

Did the April 24, 1980 effort to rescue the hostages in the US embassy in Teheran fail because a sandstorm disabled three of the eight helicopters, or because the helicopters were poorly made, or because of agents of William Casey and the Republican National Committee poured sugar into their gas tanks in yet another conspiracy?

Have the US military’s varying attempts to explain why F-15s didn’t intercept and shoot down the hijacked planes stemmed from absolutely predictable attempts to cover up the usual screw-ups, or because of conspiracy? Is Mr Cohen in his little store at the end of the block hiking his prices because he wants to make a buck, or because his rent just went up or because the Jews want to take over the world? Bebel said anti-Semitism is the socialism of the fools.

The conspiracy virus is an old strand. The Russians couldn’t possibly build an A bomb without Commie traitors in the U.S.. The Russians are too dumb. Hitler couldn’t have been defeated by the Red Army marching across Eastern Europe and half Germany. Traitors let it happen. JFK couldn’t have been shot by Oswald — it had to be the CIA. RFK couldn’t have been shot by Sirhan–it had to be the CIA. There are no end to examples seeking to prove that Russians, Arabs, Viet Cong, Japanese, etc etc couldn’t possibly match the brilliance and cunning of secret cabals of white Christians.

Michael Neumann, a philosopher, and CounterPunch contributor, at the University of Trent, in Ontario, remarked in a note to me:

    “I think the problem of conspiracy nuttery has got worse, and is part of a general trend. There really were serious questions about the Kennedy assassination, an unusual number of them, and it wasn’t too crazy to come to the wrong conclusion. There wasn’t a single serious question about 9-11. The main engine of the 9-11 conspiracy cult is nothing political; it’s the death of any conception of evidence.

    “This probably comes from the decline of Western power. Deep down, almost everyone, across the political spectrum, is locked in a bigotry which can only attribute that decline to some irrational or supernatural power. The result is the ascendency of magic over common sense, let alone reason.”

Yet some have discovered a silver lining in the 9/11 conspiracism. A politically sophisticated leftist in Washington, DC, wrote to me, agreeing with my ridiculing of the “inside job” scenarios, but adding, “To me the most interesting thing (in the US) is how many people are willing to believe that Bush either masterminded it [the 9/11 attacks] or knew in advance and let it happen. If that number or anything close to that is true, that’s a huge base of people that are more than deeply cynical about their elected officials. That would be the real news story that the media is missing, and it’s a big one.”

“I’m not sure I see the silver lining about cynicism re government,” I answered. “People used to say the same thing about the JFK conspiracy buffs and disbelief in the Warren Commission. Actually, it seems to demobilize people from useful political activity. If the alleged perpetrators are so efficiently devilish in their plots, all resistance is futile. 9/11 conspiracism stemmed from despair and political infantilism. There’s no worthwhile energy to transfer from such kookery. It’s like saying some lunatic shouting to himself on a street corner has the capacity to be a great orator.

Anyone who ever looked at the JFK assassination will know that there are endless anomalies and loose ends. Eyewitness testimony is conflicting, forensic evidence possibly misconstrued, mishandled or just missing. But in my view, the Warren Commission, as confirmed in almost all essentials by the House Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s, had it right and Oswald fired the fatal shots from the Schoolbook Depository. The evidentiary chain for his guilt is persuasive, and the cumulative scenarios of the conspiracists entirely unconvincing. But of course–as the years roll by, and even though no death bed confession has ever buttressed those vast, CIA-related scenarios — the conspiracists keep on toiling away, their obsessions as unflagging as ever.

Richard Aldrich’s book on British intelligence, The Hidden Hand (2002), describes how a report for the Pentagon on declassification recommended that “interesting declassified material” such as information about the JFK assassination “could be released and even posted on the Internet, as a ‘diversion,’” and used to “reduce the unrestrained public appetite for ‘secrets’ by providing good faith distraction material”. Aldrich adds, “If investigative journalists and contemporary historians were absorbed with the vexatious, but rather tired, debates over the grassy knoll, they would not be busy probing into areas where they were unwelcome.”

The conspiracists have combined to produce a huge distraction, just as Danny Sheehan did with his Complaint, that mesmerized and distracted much of the Nicaraguan Solidarity Movement in the 1980s, and which finally collapsed in a Florida courtroom almost as quickly as the Towers.

There are plenty of real conspiracies in America. Why make up fake ones?

(This essay is drawn from my contribution to CounterPunch’s CounterPunch Special Report: Debunking the Myths of 9/11, where Manuel Garcia Jr, physicist and engineer, presented his three reports, undertaken for CounterPunch and where  JoAnn Wypijewski wrote her essay “Conversations at Ground Zero” after a day spent with people at the site.)

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/ … ese-years/


" La propagande est aux démocraties ce que la violence est aux dictatures." (Noam Chomsky)

Un Jeudi Noir de l'Information : le documentaire qui démonte les manipulations de Canal+, Jeudi Investigation, Tac Presse...
ReOpen911 répond à Noam Chomsky et Jean Bricmont

Hors ligne

 

#10 03-09-2011 19:47:12

fedup
Membre Actif
Lieu: Finistère Nord
Date d'inscription: 02-10-2006
Messages: 4013
Site web

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

C'est vraiment désespérant... Le bougre n'a pas avancé d'un seul pouce !

Ça en devient même suspect, tellement il semble faire du sur-place : toujours les mêmes arguments minables, la même rhétorique vaseuse et dédaigneuse envers les trousseurs (de vérité) dont Griffin est toujours le grand Prêtre, et j'en passe roll

Pour qui roule Alexander Cockburn ? hmm


Il est bien trop tard, et la situation est bien trop mauvaise, pour être pessimiste. (Dee Hock)

Hors ligne

 

#11 03-09-2011 22:03:12

kikujitoh
Membre de Soutien
Lieu: Air Force One
Date d'inscription: 07-02-2009
Messages: 4814

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

Clair que c'est désespérant, ce gars est définitivement irrécupérable.


"Les versions officielles des évenements historiques devraient systématiquement être remises en question." Howard Zinn

Hors ligne

 

#12 03-09-2011 22:21:00

Corto
Membre Actif Asso
Lieu: Europe
Date d'inscription: 11-11-2010
Messages: 1311
Site web

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

ce texte est à désespérer de nullité crasse... c'est même fatiguant pour les neurones à lire.

bon, pas que ça à faire....


les projets ReOpen911 en 2014: DIFFUSION DU DOCUMENTAIRE CHOC DE MASSIMO MAZUCCO. ReOpen911 recherche en permanence des traducteurs pour ses NEWS ainsi que des bénévoles capables de réaliser du - sous titrage - sourcing - des conférences nécessitant des chargés de communication -

Hors ligne

 

#13 28-07-2012 00:32:30

Zorg
Membre Actif Asso
Date d'inscription: 18-07-2006
Messages: 4903

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

Le Monde Diplomatique - août 2012 :

Alexander Cockburn
Un homme de caractère


par Serge Halimi, août 2012

Au moment où la chape de plomb reaganienne s’abattait sur les Etats-Unis, trois plumes radicales et talentueuses ferraillaient presque chaque semaine, dans l’hebdomadaire The Nation, contre la droite libérale et ses politiques impériales : Andrew Kopkind, Christopher Hitchens et Alexander Cockburn. Ultime rescapé de cette bande informelle, Cockburn est mort le 21 juillet dernier.

Collaborateur du Monde diplomatique, il a apporté à ce journal ce qui le caractérisait en particulier : le désir d’affronter les sujets les plus difficiles, au risque de contrarier les convictions ou le confort d’une partie de ses lecteurs. Ainsi, plutôt que d’ignorer les théories qui assimilaient les attentats du 11-Septembre à un complot intérieur fomenté par la Maison Blanche, il les a combattues de front. Car elles témoignaient à ses yeux d’une disposition à apprécier les événements à travers le seul prisme des conspirations, ce qui détournait l’attention collective des manigances bien réelles — et moins liées à un coupable particulier— du système de domination américain. « L’extinction d’une gauche capable de formuler des critiques dignes de ce nom, écrivit-il dans nos colonnes, explique les réactions exagérément personnalisées à l’encontre des politiques menées par le président George W. Bush, lesquelles ont contribué à l’illusion que les démocrates représentaient une réelle solution de rechange, que n’importe lequel d’entre eux ferait l’affaire en 2008 (1). »

Le souci de ne jamais servir de roue de secours intellectuelle à un Parti démocrate qu’il exécrait a également conduit Cockburn, adversaire intraitable du « vote utile », à prendre des positions qui tranchaient avec le consensus progressiste. Dans les colonnes de son journal Counterpunch, il a ainsi nié le rôle de l’activité humaine dans le réchauffement climatique et défendu la vente libre des armes à feu.

Au-delà d’un talent et d’un humour ravageurs, sa vie aura porté la marque du courage intellectuel. Cockburn fut un des premiers à mettre en accusation l’influence du lobby pro-israélien sur la politique et sur la presse américaines. A l’époque, cela lui valut d’être aussitôt traité d’antisémite…

Il a également déploré que le rôle croissant des fondations philanthropiques dans le financement des causes progressistes ait institutionnalisé, embourgeoisé et édulcoré nombre de combats d’avant-garde. Leur dimension sociale, anticapitaliste, n’en est pas sortie indemne. L’université américaine non plus, qui sait offrir des emplois confortables aux révolutionnaires en chaire dès lors qu’ils manifestent un souci plus vif de leur carrière que du combat contre les dominations. Cockburn ne se berçait d’ailleurs pas trop d’illusions sur la portée de l’engagement intellectuel. A ses yeux, seules les pensées critiques liées au mouvement des forces sociales peuvent produire des effets sur le monde. Dans son dernier texte publié par The Nation, il concluait donc, à propos de la crise financière : « Je pense que le système s’effondrera, mais pas du fait de notre action. »

En somme, Alexander Cockburn fut un homme intègre, intransigeant, parfois imprévisible, plein de caractère. Ses écrits ont aidé des milliers de militants américains à tenir le cap quand, autour d’eux, tout les incitait à rentrer dans le rang.

Serge Halimi

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2012/08/HALIMI/48024


" La propagande est aux démocraties ce que la violence est aux dictatures." (Noam Chomsky)

Un Jeudi Noir de l'Information : le documentaire qui démonte les manipulations de Canal+, Jeudi Investigation, Tac Presse...
ReOpen911 répond à Noam Chomsky et Jean Bricmont

Hors ligne

 

#14 02-08-2012 21:38:16

josew
Membre du forum
Lieu: Savoie
Date d'inscription: 29-07-2006
Messages: 4170

Re: Cockburn aurait-il changé d'avis ?

Alexandre Cockburn avait des positions souvent intéressantes, notamment par rapport à l'Obamania rampante, par rapport au sionisme et aux néo-cons, sur les questions sociétales surtout, sur le réchauffement climatique également, mais malheureusement il semblait avoir raté un épisode, et non des moindres : celui qui est à la base de la propagande du IIIème Millénaire...

L'âge et la maladie n'ont peut-être pas aidé à la lucidité sur ce point précis, encore que d'autres personnes disparues depuis, d'un âge équivalent et emportées elles aussi par cette maladie du Siècle que constitue le cancer, avaient pris des positions diamétralement opposées sur le 11 Septembre et le Nouvel Ordre Mondial...

Malgré ces errements, retenons les aspects intéressants du combat d'Alexandre Cockburn, il y a beaucoup de choses intéressantes dans sa pensée et dans sa prose, et c'est en cela que l'on peut saluer sa mémoire.

Dernière modification par josew (02-08-2012 21:39:39)


"Qui ne dit mot, consent"
Animateur d'un site d'informations sur le Nouvel Ordre Mondial et le Spirituel....
Non classé rouge.

Hors ligne

 

Pied de page des forums

Propulsé par PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson
Traduction par punbb.fr