Concerning Bill Moyers and 9/11

[Ed Jewett]

Concerning Bill Moyers and 9/11


"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
-Albert Einstein

"In a postmodern world, truth is part of the privilege of power and to question received truth is to forego received power."
-Sam Smith

Bill Moyers, a persuasive voice for the Johnson Administration's Great Society, has for decades framed his commentary with soft-spoken eloquence. His career has spanned the administrations of nine presidents, and he has become a powerhouse in influencing public opinion in the United States.

In February, Moyers published an article containing the following paragraph:

"Disinformation is not unique to the right, of course. Like other journalists, I have been the object of malevolent assaults from the 9/11 truthers' for not reporting their airtight case proving that the Bush administration conspired to bring about the attacks on the World Trade Center. How did they discover this conspiracy? As the independent journalist Robert Parry has written, the truthers' threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they had indeed done it. Then, recycling some of the right's sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence, the truthers' cherry-picked a few supposed anomalies' to build an inside-job' story line. Fortunately, this Big Lie never took hold in the public mind. These truthers on the left, if that is where GPS can find them on the political map, are outgunned, outmatched and outshouted by the media apparatus on the right that pounds the public like drone missiles loaded with conspiracy theories and disinformation and accompanied by armadas of outright lies."

http://www.truth-out.org/bill-moyers-fac...atter67571

It is difficult to understand why someone so well informed would smear a movement as if unaware of the thousands of accomplished academics, engineers and governmental personnel filling its ranks, including theologian David Ray Griffin whose books on 9/11, models of faultless analysis, have won him worldwide acclaim. It is also irregular that Moyers, in labeling a global collective of respectable people with his "Big Lie" brush, leans heavily on the words of another person.

Moyers, like so many attempting to discredit the Truth Movement, charges that it seeks to prove "… that the Bush administration conspired to bring about the attacks on the World Trade Center". Deliberate or not, this charge, seen often by supporters of the official 9/11 story, is misleading. The Bush Administration per se is not the central issue. What is sought, first and foremost, as the Movement's label implies, is simply truth. The common denominator within the diverse, global Truth Movement (when you discount infiltrators intent on delegitimizing it with silly claims) is call for an honest, independent investigation. To date, there has not been one, as even members of the 9/11 Commission have admitted. One Commission member, Max Cleland, resigned in disgust over the "whitewash".

Regarding allegations of governmental complicity that may exist within the Truth Movement, Moyers writes "Fortunately, this Big Lie never took hold in the public mind." In truth, a sizable proportion of Americans and citizens all over the world do suspect some involvement in the attack by elements within the U.S. Government and possibly a foreign "ally" as well. This has been mainstream news for years, and there is even a Wikipedia page covering 9/11 opinion polls, so that one must conclude Moyers knew his statement was false.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_1...nion_polls

Moyers relies on a January article by Robert Parry as he besmirches "truthers".

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/011511.html.

Parry's derisive piece would have seemed uninformed half a decade ago. He refers readers to a discredited 2005 Popular Mechanics treatment and to an outdated (2006) Q&A website of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The piece is so bad that one might feel embarrassment for the author whose shingle reads "investigative journalist".

While the left is where a GPS might find any given member of the Truth Movement on a political map, political orientation is not germane with this issue. In any case, because Moyers wields considerable influence in the U.S., he is as answerable for his statements as is any politician, and one should feel free to speculate regarding forces behind his positions. The concept of "left gatekeeper" describes ostensibly progressive reporters acting to keep specific issues away from public scrutiny. There is such a vast array of discussion on this subject available via search engine that examples should not be necessary here, but is it relevant that Moyers is often mentioned in this context.

In simple fact, the official story regarding 9/11 is replete with obvious falsehoods and physical impossibilities any one of which a "free press" should pursue, and what Peter Dale Scott terms the "Deep State" benefits from contemporary journalism's calculated avoidance of the issue. At the same time, molding attitudes within the nation's intelligentsia requires commentators from within its own cultured and cerebral domain, and Moyers fills that slot like no other.
There is a vast and growing global network of honorable and informed men and women intent on exposing the conspicuous fabrications associated with the 9/11 attack. Included are figures in academe, government, intelligence, the military and every profession you can think of. Bill Moyers has, in public forum, called them liars, and a number of them have published an open letter requesting an apology, said letter posted on a number of websites, including that of Veterans Today.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/26/...ll-moyers/

Moyers has certainly seen it. Noting the titles of scientists and engineers of various categories (one representing 1,500 others), of theologians of distinction (liars?) and of journalists (one, like himself, a noted media critic), does he nevertheless consider an apology beneath him or a threat to a carefully maintained persona? Might he suspect an apology would irk the powers that enjoy the privilege of truth so as to jeopardize his own received power? Or would he rethink a position too quickly taken and see that an apology is due?

Ultimately, his response to the request, or his failure to acknowledge it altogether, would be a defining feature of the true core of the man, his prestige and silver-tongued oratory notwithstanding.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/07/...rs-and-911

[Lauren Johnson]

I have a friend who is a prominent academic in the social sciences. He simply dismisses any 9/11 narrative other than the official one. He can do this without examining any alternative. He is politically in the left wing. He also can excuse anything Obama does without blinking an eye.

I see Moyers in the same way. He cannot and will not consider an alternative.

[Phil Dragoo]

[size=12]Moyers the perennial Orwellian.: [/SIZE]

George Orwell had warned six decades ago that the corrosion of language goes hand in hand with the corruption of democracy. If he were around today, he would remind us that "like the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket," this kind of propaganda engenders a "protective stupidity" almost impossible for facts to penetrate.

Sam Waterson who portrayed Helms in the outtakes of Nixon was so outraged by Moyers' daisy commercial for LBJ that the actor voted for Goldwater.

Moyers was the pimp for the Warren Commission, and now, for the 911 Commission.

He is the Inner Party member, Hoffer's True Believer, Stalin's New Soviet Man.

With Todd Leventhal and Cass Sunstein he forms the troika of newthink.

[Charles Drago]

"Disinformation is not unique to the right, of course. Like other journalists, I have been the object of malevolent assaults from the 9/11 truthers' for not reporting their airtight case proving that the Bush administration conspired to bring about the attacks on the World Trade Center. How did they discover this conspiracy? As the independent journalist Robert Parry has written, the truthers' threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they had indeed done it. Then, recycling some of the right's sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence, the truthers' cherry-picked a few supposed anomalies' to build an inside-job' story line.

My Dear Mr. Moyer:

Your second sentence reveals a controlling emotional subtext; you are offended, and you will have your revenge.

Next, you assert your understanding of the nature of disinformation. Yet in the same sentence you resort to presentation of the sort of straw man fallacy that is one of disinformation's most commonly utilized and effective components: you imply that those who find fatal fault with the parent state's conspiracy theory act as a monolithic entity as they proclaim that "the Bush administration conspired to bring about the attacks on the World Trade Center."

Are you, sir, a victim or a practitioner of disinformation? See below for my conclusion.

I inform you of the following:

1. There is no 9-11 conspiracy "community" other than that comprised of parent state-approved spokespersons and the "scientists" and media pimps who do their bidding. 9-11 research has been Balkanized by ego, greed, hostile actions by coverup facilitators, and honest differences of opinion.

2. I know of not a single 9-11 researcher with highly developed deep political insight who fingers the "Bush Administration" as the collective sponsor of the conspiracy.

3. Both you and Mr. Parry would inject "al-Qaeda" into this debate with the understanding that it exists as the parent state describes it. It's best that you learn this from me: Opinion to the contrary exists -- well-informed, courageously espoused, persuasive opinion. You and Mr. Parry, if I may borrow the phrase, have "thrown out" all such opinion in rushing to support the unsupportable.

4. You and/or Mr. Parry (talk about a distinction without a difference) assert that 9-11 researchers present "long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence" (itself a neat description of the actions of the parent state's propagandists). With yours and Mr. Parry's dismissals of all evidence suggestive of conspiracy (other than the model approved by the parent state), you would have us draw the inference that you have objectively reviewed said evidence and that your conclusions as to its collective lack of validity trump those of the thousands of accomplished and respected scientists whose objective studies have raised challenges to the official conspiracy theory.

Yet neither you nor Mr. Parry offer any support for your conclusions other than deference to arguments from your own cherry-picked "authorities."

5. You may have noted that I have not used the term "Truthers" to describe those who reject the parent state's official 9-11 conspiracy theory.

You fancy yourself a wordsmith, Mr. Moyers. Think, then, about how and why, in a single word, those who seek the truth have been marginalized and demonized.

One wonders how the authors of the line, "We hold these truths to be self-evident" would have been characterized by their parent state.

Which side would you and Mr. Parry have been on?

Finally, we return to my previously posed question: Are you, sir, a victim or a practitioner of disinformation?

The simple, inescapable answer: Yes.

[Ed Jewett]

"Another thing for sure is that Bin Laden didn't pack up the evidence from the WTC without an engineering forensic examination and send it on a slow boat to China."

[Jeffrey Orling]

Regardless of any 911 "truther" conspiracy theory... a rather casual examination of the official "theory" of narrative is so lacking in supportive evidence of a legal standard it is laughable.

How is it possible that there was no NTSB investigation of the plane "crashes"?

How is it that not a single serial numbered part from a plane which were reported to have been hijacked and slammed into the twins, the pentagon and Shanksville have been produced?

How is it that none of the videos (scores of them) from security cameras around the pentagon have not been released to support the plane crashing into the pentagon "theory"?

How is it that a hijackers passport or drivers license (don't recall) survived the crash into tower one and was found in virtually perfect condition on the street next to the trade center?

One could go on and on the evidence of lack of evidence or non credible evidence upon which the official conspiracy theory was based. Falsifying the official conspiracy is "kid's stuff". Figuring out what happened is clearly a bit harder since the gov has destroyed and withheld the evidence that one would need. How convenient is that?

911 was such a massive crime, cover up and deception it would rip the nation and the MIC and national security state apart. The emperor would be revealed to have no clothes and worse.. stolen our treasure for decades and decades. Out would come the pitch forks and it wouldn't be too pleasant to be inside the belt way or and insider to those inside the beltway. Can't let that happen... the house of cards would collapse.

Coward or in denial... or both? Maybe he fears for his life? They do kill don't they?