The Huffington Post Bans 9/11 Truthers

The Huffington Post bans 9/11 Truthers, and equates them with birthers (as if they are similar lunatics).  Additionally, for an article or blog to be published with 9/11 Truth references, it must be derisive in tone.  Realism: “the birther movement includes . . . members of Congress” (none of whom has been run out of town), “while connection to the truther movement can help cost [an] . . . obscure administration official his job.”  Moreover, when it comes to the Huffington Post, even commenting along those lines (as a mere reader with a profile) will get you banned:

“More full disclosure: I despise 9/11 ‘truther’ conspiracies.  Indeed, one of  the guidelines for bloggers on HuffPost is a ban on posts putting forth those kinds of theories.  The 9/11 ‘Truthers’ are fringe-dwellers. . . .”

Thus, clearly, “truthers” (who have volumes of credible information) are relegated to the same level as “birthers” (who have no logical or remotely upstanding basis).  Indeed, from Arianna Huffington herself, there is a “ban” on “those kinds of theories” – since they are “[despicable].”  It is then assumed that (the late Aaron Russo,) Rosie O’ Donnell, Martin and Charlie Sheen, David Lynch, Ed Begley, Jr., Janeane Garofalo, Ed Asner, Harry and Gina Belafonte, Woody Harrelson, James Cromwell, Peter Coyote, James Brolin, Richard Linklater, and Rory O’Connor (to name a few) would be considered “fringe-dwellers” – thus, not welcomed to blog or comment in relation to their theories on 9/11, or support of the truther movement (in some specific areas).  (Jesse Ventura: Confirmed.)  (Along other lines of stature, what about the celebrated, brave, whistleblowing, former FBI agent Coleen Rowley?  Are her relative views and stands prejudged as irrelevant, zany antics?)  Further, beyond not being welcomed to posit, would it also be rational to assume that, as far as Arianna Huffington and her staff is concerned, Janeane Garofalo, for example, is just another lunatic?  If so, my previous suggestion of a written debate between Bob Cesca and David Ray Griffin (as a means of clarity) will most likely never even receive consideration.  That’s sad, in various aspects – one being “9/11 Truthers mainly base their cases of question, and desire for an independent investigation, on scientific and documented evidence”; “birthers” base theirs on none.  (All of the latter, excluding updates, was, of course, Rejected as a reply.)  Another aspect is one where, since Cesca is so vocal in equating birthers and truthers together as “wackaloons,” shouldn’t he relish the opportunity of a supposedly easy task of mopping the floor with Griffin – over facts?  Yes, and if he ever went into the written or in-person debate, mopping would definitely take place, unexpectedly – because, obviously unbeknownst to Cesca, Griffin is a world away from the likes of Orly Taitz.

Van Jones Resigns, Backpedals, and Disavows
“QUESTION: . . . he was on an organizing committee for a 9/11 Truther march.  Your administration has been very active in knocking down the so-called Birthers, . . . who allege without any evidence, and despite all evidence to the contrary, that the president was not born in the United States.  How can the administration tolerate somebody who subscribes to a different insane conspiracy theory, as a senior adviser?”  To again clarify significant extremes: Centered 9/11 Truthers are all about “evidence to the contrary” – but, of the official version – where overwhelming facts in many areas/facets beg for more light.  Most of the 9/11 Commission, for instance, completely ignored (WTC 7, eyewitness accounts, etc.) or purposely obscured considerable “evidence to the contrary” of their predetermined results/goals.  As far as conspiracy theories, a passage from Debunking 9/11 Debunking: “Assuming that one of the two conspiracy theories about 9/11 is irrational, because it is contradicted by the facts, is it the official theory or the alternative theory?”  In direct relation, and as a result of these ongoing public floggings of Truthers, a “30-percent open[-minded]” visit to the web sites of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Scholars for Truth is recommended for substance – after, or in combination with, a reading of The New Pearl Harbor.  Further, for those of the Spirit who “fight the good fight” in ultimately Just causes, a quote from David Ray Griffin’s Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action: “If 9/11 is not a religious issue, then I don’t know what is.”

Questions, History, and Stances:

“Inactivity” – Before 9/11
Paul Begala’s article, “Mr. Cheney, You Did Not Keep Us Safe” ended with a time-line of “inactivity” – Before 9/11.  Response: “Combined with all the ‘coincidental’ inactivity and seeming indifference, which just happened to benefit the hijackers’ goals (such as the FBI’s quashing of reports from Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago, and New York, and John O’Neill’s resignation from the FBI over what he considered ‘repeated obstruction of his investigations into al-Qaeda,’ etc.), there was also significant ‘activity’ – behind closed doors.  Qwest Communications (e.g.) was served with National Security Letters (as were other tele-coms), before 9/11, in relation to a (secret and illegal) Warrantless Surveillance program.  Many could wonder: with all the supposed apathy going on previous to the planes striking their targets, what was the ‘ticking time-bomb‘ scenario which led them to covertly bypass FISA – well before they ever hit?”

WTC (“Pull It”) 7
Exoteric: Without having been hit by a plane, WTC 7 was the third steel-frame building (on the same day) in history to “collapse,” totally (including core columns), from fire damage – in a free-fall.  Senator John Kerry’s version (as if it was completely devoid of nefarious implications): “I do know that . . . wall, I remember, was in danger – and I think that they made a decision based on the danger that it had of destroying other things, that they did it in a Controlled Fashion.”  (Question: How believable is it that WTC 7 was planned and rigged for demolition in under, say, five hours?)  So, which proposed Theories are credible?  Esteemed “alternative” researchers, impartial scientists and engineers – or officials – purposely looking in, and for, other ways?  As far as evidence, another passage from Debunking 9/11 Debunking: “As Steven Jones has written: ‘The likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 due to random fires . . . – requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns – is infinitesimal.”  Yet, NIST’s  “Thermal Expansion” as a simple scientific wonder was an “official” explanation.  What about Senator (“Controlled Fashion”) Kerry?  Overruled by NIST.  Still, if he was (bluntly) correct, and the reception by unbiased peers on “Thermal Expansion” has been pure, confirming mockery – what would the cover for the revelation of Demolition be?  Unsurprisingly, they might come up with a statement like: “Well, NIST did what they were directed to do.  But, now that this has come out (where, undeniably, we could not have set WTC 7 up – while it was burning), our currently released position is one where we have been secretly rigging buildings all over the U.S. – ahead of time – just in case it’s needed – for many years.”  In turn, public recognition: “How ‘insane[ly]’ convenient!”  Retort: “Classified scenarios of such a volatile level were (and to the greatest extent, remain) far beyond your ‘need to know’ status.”

Shoot, or Stand Down?
Norman Mineta: “There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out.  The plane is 30 miles out.’  And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’  And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand.  Have you heard anything to the contrary?’“ In context of the overall situation – and a localized  outcome (the Pentagon was hit), what determination is more rational – an order was given to Shoot Down, or Stand Down?

A Moderate’s View on The Truth of 9/11
“Surveillance/inside information led to Knowing It Was Coming.  Based on the latter, covert actions were implemented that would Enhance the Outcome.  Then, Standing Down (just long enough) during the occurrence assured an expectation of success.”

Finally, though this blog post could go on (for at least) another twelve pages just focusing on self-evident information, the following statements are a (momentary) conclusion.  As an avid reader of the Huffington Post since its inception, it has been intensely disillusioning to discover such absolute ludicrousness by way of shamefully distorted associations and uninformed positions.  Howard Zinn, historian, author, and playwright, on “The New Pearl Harbor” : ‘[T]he most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration’s relationship to that historic and troubling event.’  By contrast, his likely take on the birthers: “The most unsustainable, unconvincing, and unsupported-by-facts pile of Beckish rubbish ever brought forth in relation to the Obama administration.”  In spite of blanketing assertions attempting to label Truthers and birthers into the same box of “insanity,” they are not similar – to an extreme.  One side is completely blinded (and manipulated like clueless sheep) – thus, irrespective of facts and shaded political realities.  The other is analytically grounded, critically aware of political possibilities, and pushing forward with ultimate Reason.

Update: A surprising admission: “Some, but not all, of the left thought Bush had prior knowledge of the September 11th attacks.  It’s a matter of record that he knew an attack might be imminent based upon the famous PDB titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’  So that one was partially true.”  Undoubtedly, Bob Cesca knows what doors are then opened – by invitation.  However, if one should step up and try to go (rationally) within, he or she would be ridiculed as just another “wackaloon.”  Is that objectively reasonable, or “partially” acceptable?  Neither.  Once an area of truth so astounding (and implicative) is revealed, the naturally following exploration of related questions ought to be welcomed – without denigration.

Update II: Obama Confidant’s Spine-Chilling Proposal: “In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories“ about the Government.”  (Sunstein and Beck Fire Shots Across Our Bow)

Update III: Mike Green was allowed to publish an article with 9/11 Truth references on the Huffington Post (03/07/2009)?  Unannounced changes?  Progress?  No. (Exploring the angle.)

Update IV: In his article (04/19/2010), “NPR & Trust in Government,” Robert Shetterly referenced WTC 7 and the totally rational suspicions/questions relating.  Hopefully, more people like him will continue to speak out, while braving the mainstream (institutionalized) ridicule.

Robert Shetterly’s Reply: “I’ve decided to begin taking on the 9/11 story though my portrait project AmericansWhoTelltheTruth .
I’ll paint a portrait of David Ray Griffin in May.”

Update V: Once again applauding as an example to the Huffington Post for their reprinting of an article by John Kirby, Let’s Rejoice in Terror’s Benefits!, which cited the WTC 7 scenario.

Update VI: Another example from the Huffington Post (09/11/2010):
There are many ways that the “Media Embarrass Themselves.”  One in particular is through  journalist reporting which purports to expose the “idio[cy]” of situations and others – while at the same time failing to recognize its own ignorance: Regarding the ridiculous “day of Quran burning” story, and a thoroughly misguided pastor, Jason Linkins ridiculed the Media’s most significant part in the charade.  However, he did not do so without belittling, and equating, another group with the instigator.  Before one could even get to “this cult leader lied,” there was a “lone” derogatory reference (by implicative association) to ‘truther’ “signs.”  That was sad and offensive (in an ongoing fashion) – but not at all surprising.

The referred to “leader of [this] microscopic cult” deserved to be called out, early (as written).  And, the situation obviously reflected an individual and a Press who were lost in various modes.  Yet, though there are almost always “microscopic” elements of fringe movements / organizations which serve to destroy the credibility of a main focus (some consciously, such as saboteurs), this method of expounding a few “lone idiots” should not be implemented as a means of mirroring the whole.  If particular groups, especially those with some legitimate standing, are to be openly debased in this type of one-sided mode, what does it say about the demagogues – when the targets are not only scarlet-lettered, but also denied their voices in defense?

Bookmark and Share

23 Responses to The Huffington Post Bans 9/11 Truthers

  1. […] Truth & WTC-7 Free Fall: (Coup) Commentary The Truth of 9/11: “Surveillance/inside information led to Knowing It Was Coming.  Based on the latter, covert […]

  2. seaclearly says:

    CS – In early 2008, Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh and MSNBC, both reported that Cheney had proposed to the Pentagon an outrageous plan to have the U.S. Navy create fake Iranian patrol boats, to be manned by Navy Seals, who would then stage an attack on US destroyers in the Strait of Hormuz. This event was to be blamed on Iran and used as a pretext for war. Does any of this information worry you Mr. President? Should we just ignore it, until these realities can be dismissed years from now by our children, as ancient history as well?

    Possible Reply: PBO – Of course this information worries me, yet it’s not nearly as worrisome as you sitting here today suspiciously implying that 9/11 was somehow allowed to happen or even orchestrated from the inside.

  3. seaclearly says:

    In relation: “Mr Record, a former staff member of the Senate armed services committee (and an apparent favourite of the Council on Foreign Relations), also advocated the acceptability of presidential subterfuge in the promotion of a conflict. Mr Record explicitly urged painting over the US’s actual reasons for warfare with a nobly high-minded veneer, seeing such as a necessity for mobilising public support for a conflict.”

  4. Craig Welbourn says:

    Copy of a letter I sent to Adrianna Huffington re her ban of 911 “Truthers”:

    Dear Ms Huffington- I have just read your book “The Right is Wrong” and I can say it is a clearly and well expressed litany of the outrageous sins of the Republicans during the W years. On almost every page, I have highlighted passages that should be disseminated widely because of their incisive accuracy. One particularly insightful quote is “The Right’s do-nothing response… stems from the fundamentalist notion that facts are the enemy of faith.”

    Yet I understand that you have banned doing anything about unanswered questions about 911, perhaps because you believe the questions come from a lunatic fringe. On the contrary, literally thousands of highly educated and reputable professionals including architects, physicists, scholars, lawyers, medical doctors, pilots, firefighters, veterans, politicians, and families of the unfortunate victims believe that the official story has some deficiencies that need to be investigated.* To turn a deaf ear to them would demonstrate a contempt for real knowledge and expertise and, as you say, “parrot the spin of the administration.”

    Not examining the facts for fear of where it might lead is akin to demonizing Darwin for fear of where his facts might lead. Do you truly believe that the problem with 911 is too much questioning of those in authority? Or do you subscribe to “When the facts are against you, attack the plaintiff.”

    So, have you become victim to the fundamentalist notion that facts are the enemy of faith? If so, I’m afraid you are putting yourself in jeopardy of losing your credibility. And that would be a real shame considering your significant and important contributions to righting the wrong.

    Craig Welbourn
    Washago, ON Canada

    * see

  5. […] about some phone call from a safe house in Afghanistan into the U.S. about 9/11?   Before 9/11?  You didn’t do anything about it? Either the Attorney General just admitted that the government for which he works is guilty of […]

  6. […] of “extremist belief system[s]” be truly objective?  If so, one could assume 9/11 Truthers, including prominent architects and engineers, would no longer be on the House’s target list?  […]

  7. […] WTC 7: A Short Clip.  A Free Fall.  A 9/11 (Truth) Miracle? WTC 7: Only The Third In History (On The Same Day). WTC 7 (WTC-7 Free Fall): “Pull It.”  Perfect Collapse. […]

    • seaclearly says:

      Huffington Post Kills Jesse Ventura’s Piece On 9/11:

      • seaclearly says:

        It was quite surprising to see this published, Mr. Green. Last September, Arianna Huffington proclaimed the following: “More full disclosure: I despise 9/11 ‘truther’ conspiracies. Indeed, one of the guidelines for bloggers on HuffPost is a ban on posts putting forth those kinds of theories.” Regarding the same article, I agreed that we should not have a “. . . landscape filled with nothing but wrinkle-free, foible-free, passionless automatons who . . . never took the risk of having an original thought.” Yet, (though referencing public office) the latter assertion was contradictory, or short-sighted, while purporting to be all-inclusive. As stated previously, the reality of “original thought” – when it relates to any logical questions of the official 9/11 narrative – is one of utter shunning: “If one should step up and try to go (rationally) within, he or she is ridiculed as just another ‘wackaloon.’” “Is that objectively reasonable, or ‘partially’ acceptable? Once an area . . . so astounding (and implicative) is [moderately opened], the naturally following exploration of related questions ought to be welcomed – without denigration.”

  8. […] The Huffington Post Bans 9/11 Truthers […]

  9. […] The Huffington Post Bans 9/11 Truthers World Stage Actors InfoWars Article […]

  10. seaclearly says:

    A&E 911 Truth Campaign: Building What?

    “Recognizing the high correlation between those who know about the collapse of WTC 7 and those who believe that a new – or rather real – 9/11 investigation is needed, I propose that the international 9/11 Truth Movement initiate, starting this September, a world-wide, year-long ‘BuildingWhat?’ campaign. Through this campaign, we would seek to make the fact of its collapse so widely known that the mention of Building 7 would never again evoke the question: ‘Building What?’ ”

    –David Ray Griffin, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth

  11. […] The Huffington Post Bans 9/11 Truthers […]

  12. seaclearly says:

    Huffington Post Reply: Ahmadinejad U.N. Speech (VIDEO): U.S. Walks Out Over 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

    Anything relating to “this area” is usually not allowed (here). There are exemptions, however: if the article, journalist, or reference is derogatory in tone, that is welcomed. See, for instance, Jason Linkins’ slighting inclusion of a “truther” notation – as if it was at all necessary in the “Quran Burning Story.” Or, check out Ryan Grim’s “Glenn Beck Gets First Scalp: Van Jones Resigns”: “How can the administration tolerate somebody who subscribes to a different insane conspiracy theory, as a senior adviser?” In addition, Bob Cesca sums up the atmosphere with the term “wackaloon”: “But who knew they would top themselves this week with an attack so simultaneously absurd and shameless that it easily fits comfortably in the Birther/Truther wackaloon syllabus” (as if birthers & truthers are on the same level). But, then again: “Indeed, one of the guidelines for bloggers on HuffPost is a ban on posts putting forth those kinds of theories,” since they are (all) “fringe-dwellers.”

    PS: “Because of his work regarding 9/11, David Ray Griffin and the 9/11 Truth Movement were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. . . .”

  13. SeaClearly says:

    FBI: 9/11 Truthers Should be Treated as Potential Terrorists– Really!

    Note: Obama Confidant’s Spine-Chilling Proposal
    Note: 1) – 5)

    So now, merely just “believing” the “possibility” of some conspiracy, somewhere, as culminated by even a (hidden) few — after watching videos of WTC7 falling (for example) might mean you are viewed as a terrorist worthy of indefinite detention? Correspondingly, after writing a few blog posts like FOX News Presents WTC 7 The Huffington Post Bans 9/11 Truthers and NPR “Obscures the Truth” after “believing” (thoughts) that the core columns of WTC7 would (obviously) not have fallen in pure synchronicity, what would one now do? Live in fear of rendition, indefinite detention, and. . . .?

    Here? In the U.S.? For thoughts? For reacting to the level of writing posts along the lines of “what in the hell?” Couldn’t happen. Not here. Not to me. Not to us (those who may similarly wonder) (thoughts), overall. (End note: 9/11 Truth/WTC 7 is not an area written about or focused on anymore. But, My God! Imagine how many people would have been rounded up if the same mentality had been applied to JFK theorists? What’s next? If you “believe” in UFOs, will you be committed? Just please . . . let this be more propaganda, not tangible Truth.)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers

%d bloggers like this: