"9/11 Truth" News Goes Mainstream; Time Magazine Finds Theory Credible

Britain's Daily Mail gives the Truthersa weirdly credulous hearing, and insists the theory comes from "top men."

Who?

Top men.

The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.

Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.

...

But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated.

Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history.

He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US.

Okay, Jones is a "philospher of science," which means he's not a scientist, but that word is in there, so he's a "leading scientist" and/or "top expert."

So-- with all this academic firepower on the Truthers' side, let's take a look at the people who oppose them.

Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts, has dismissed the academic group.

Not a "top" professor, so ignore him.

He's the only dissenting voice quoted.

Time notes that "Loose Change" began as a fictional screenplay:

As a narrative, the official story that the government--echoed by the media--is trying to sell shows an almost embarrassing lack of novelistic flair, whereas the story the conspiracy theorists tell about what happened on Sept. 11 is positively Dan Brownesque in its rich, exciting complexity. Rowe and his collaborator, Dylan Avery, 22, actually started writing Loose Change as a fictional screenplay--"loosely based around us discovering that 9/11 was an inside job," Rowe says--before they became convinced that the evidence of conspiracy was overwhelming.

...before noting that this is all very plausible, given Bush's lies:

The Administration is certainly playing its part in the drama with admirable zeal. If we went to war to root out fictional weapons of mass destruction, is staging a fictional terrorist attack such a stretch?

Ah, yes. The fair and balanced media.

The media and the Democrats keep spinning that liberals don't believe this, but 1, many of them do, and 2, you can see how much sympathy liberals have for these people from the Daily Mail and Time.

Would a conservative-driven conspiracy theory be given such a pass? There is much more evidence to suggest a Middle East/Iraq connection in the OKC bombings, but the media has been haughtily dismissive of such talk.

You can tell someone's politics from the crazies they make excuses for. It's pretty plain that Time magazine views the "Truthers" as an important part of the liberal coalition they're worried about overly offending.

Time Magazine makes sure it keeps the the conspiracy theory alive. Hey, if someone wants to vote against Republicans in November based on this lunacy, Time sure the hell is not going to argue with them, right?

Meanwhile, in the little-read World Net Daily:

University of Wisconsin professor who works with 9-11 conspiracist Kevin Barrett says he's a "fruitcake" who is too biased in favor of Islam to teach a class on the subject.

Barrett, a Muslim convert, was recently cleared by the college to teach a course this fall titled, "Islam: Religion and Culture." Like many Muslims, he contends the 9-11 attacks were an "inside job" carried out by Bush administration officials and not Islamic terrorists.

Specifically, Barrett argues Bush officials rigged the World Trade Center with incendiary devices to bring it down and start a war against Islam.

"He's a fruitcake," says Marshall F. Onellion, a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin. "He has no education in any engineering or science area pertinent to how, or whether, buildings fall down when hit by airplanes. Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion" that will influence students.
...

But Barrett, who heads a group called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," speculates that pro-Israeli neoconservatives led by Vice President Dick Cheney toppled the Twin Towers with secretly planted explosives or incendiary devices such as thermite rods. It's a popular theory in the Muslim community. The anti-Bush left has also embraced it.

Barrett, who converted to Islam 13 years ago, teaches a course on Islam that critics say whitewashes the 1400-year history of jihad against the West.

...

"I simply do not believe that an adult convert to Islam is capable of objectively teaching, or objectively grading, a course on his religion," [Obellin] told WorldNetDaily. "Never would such a person be objective."

Ignore him. He's not a "leading scientist."

The world has gone crazy, and the war is lost. The liberals are so deranged they will entertain notions like this simply so they can regain power for a few years before bowing to the Caliphate.

The First Step In Dealing With Tragedy Is Denial: And the liberals have been locked in Step One since 1994.

Okay, they do frequently move up to Step Two (Anger) and sometimes Step Three (Bargaining -- as in, "Look, if we pretend we'll fight terrorists, will you let us ruin your lives?).

But Step One is where they spend most of their time.

Like David Gregory angrily denying he is restating Democratic talking points, prefering to label them "facts."

posted by Ace at 12:10 PM

| Access Comments