Despite the Van Jones lynching, Salon finds that the vast majority of individuals still support the call for a new inquiry
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, September 11, 2009
Despite a concerted effort on behalf of the establishment media to portray 9/11 truth as a taboo subject in light of the resignation of Van Jones, a Salon.com investigation has found that the vast majority of original signatories to a petition calling for a new investigation into the events of 9/11 stand by their word.
Polls have consistently shown that a significant majority of Americans question the official 9/11 story and those concerns are shared by thousands of military leaders, current and former government officials, intelligence professionals, legal scholars, as well as scores of architects, scientists and engineers.
However, the fact that Van Jones recanted his support for a new investigation and was subsequently forced to resign enabled the media to manufacture a contrived perception that merely doubting the official story in any way was an embarrassing faux pas worthy of public ostracization.
In reality, as America marks the eighth anniversary since the tragic events of that day, support for 9/11 truth is as strong as ever and it’s firmly back at the forefront of public attention following Charlie Sheen’s letter and video message to Barack Obama demanding unanswered questions about the attacks be addressed.
“Salon contacted nearly 30 of the petition’s signatories to see if they felt, as did Lerner, Zinn and Jones, that the document didn’t reflect their views on 9/11. We asked a simple question: If you had to do it all over again, would you still sign the statement?”
“Salon has not heard back from two of the statement’s most famous signatories: actor Ed Asner and comedian Janeane Garofalo. (Editor’s Note: We will update this story if they respond.) But many did respond and most — though not all — expressed their full-fledged support for the petition,” according to the report.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
The article quotes people such as Gray Brechin, historical geographer and visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley’s Department of Geography, who slams the chilling atmosphere that the establishment has attempted to generate around the subject.
“Have you contacted the widows and other family members who lost loved ones on that terrible day and asked them if they recant wondering why, for example, New York City and the Pentagon — the fucking Pentagon! — were defenseless on that morning more than a month after the would-be president was informed that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the United States?” asks Brechin. “Have you asked them if they are as disloyal, or as nuts, as Van Jones for signing that petition? Have you an answer for that and other questions on that petition, which were never discussed by the mainstream media when it piled on Jones at (Glenn) Beck’s behest?”
Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University, told Salon that he would happily sign the petition again, stating, “Citizens in a democratic society deserve to know the truth, and to seek the truth in matters of such fundamental national importance should be treated as an expression of patriotic duty rather than the reverse.”
Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University, also restated his support for the petition, noting that the questions it contained have still not been answered to this day.
“First of all, the statement asks for a new inquiry into 9/11. That is hardly an insane demand, considering the many obstacles and limitations that prevented the 9/11 Commission from doing a proper job,” said Miller. “That body was deliberately enfeebled by Bush/Cheney: grossly underfunded ($3 million — while, for example, the budget for the study of the Challenger disaster was $50 million, and Whitewater cost over $40 million); granted no subpoena power; forced to rush the process; denied all sorts of vital information; and otherwise slowed down, fouled up, kept in the dark.”
“Witnesses employed by the USG were daunted openly by departmental colleagues who sat in on the hearings, ostentatiously, as “minders.” (“The Commission feels unanimously,” said Chairman Thomas Kean, “that it’s some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work with or works with your agency.”) And Bush/Cheney themselves refused to testify except in tandem, with a strict limit on their time, and their testimony given off the record and not under oath,” adds Miller.
“So how could anyone regard that body’s findings as definitive — even if those findings were not rife with logical and physical impossibilities, as well as glaring omissions?”
Miller concludes by saying that instead of vilifying “9/11 truthers,” the press should actually start examining the evidence itself.
Douglas Sturm, professor emeritus of religion and political science, Bucknell University, is another distinguished individual who stands by his support for a new investigation into 9/11.
“In direct response to your query, I in no way repudiate my action signing the 9/11 statement. It stands as an appeal to investigate closely and carefully a series of questions about that tragic event that have yet to receive fully satisfactory answers,” he told Salon.
Burns H. Weston, professor emeritus, University of Iowa law school, echoed similar sentiments, stating, “Yes, I would do it all over again. It is my position that too many critical questions have not yet been officially answered, if even investigated, and that, therefore, the jury is still out on the complete truth of 9/11.”
This article was posted: Friday, September 11, 2009 at 4:29 am