By guest Blogger Terry Morrone

I feel guilty and inferior about my unconventional views and about my affliction. I’ll tell you about it later. But I’m reminded of the history of Christianity. There were different versions during the first few centuries of the Christian era. The early church argued about the nature of Christ. Was he divine? Was he subordinate to the father? Was the God of the Old Testament the same as the God of the New Testament, etc., etc.? The version of Christianity of the Roman church eventually won out, and the Bible was finalized. Once the official story was accepted, going against it was considered heresy.

From then on Church doctrine was modified or clarified only by the Pope or at ecumenical councils. I was recently at such a council in New York City. It’s called the Left Forum. The Pope gave a speech and received a standing ovation before a packed auditorium. The Pope’s name is Noam Chomsky.

Chomsky’s address was brilliant as usual. He pointed out the corruption of the establishment and the widespread frustrations of the public. He didn’t mention 9/11. It’s not part of the normal left dogma. It’s not worthy of the time of the distinguished scholars attending.

A few years ago there was a Left Forum session on 9/11. I’ve been going to the Left Forum and its predecessor, the Socialistic Scholars Conference, for 7 years. Unlike any session I’ve attended, it was turned into a debate. Two people presented evidence supporting a conspiracy. Two others dismissed the evidence on theoretical grounds.

Chomsky and the editors of several progressive news magazines have led the charge against the “conspiracy theorists.” They have also settled on the official religion of the left concerning 9/11. If you want to avoid heresy and excommunication, here’s the official line:  The government took advantage of 9/11 to promote its imperialistic agenda and to put us into a state of permanent war. The attacks on 9/11 are blowback, a consequence of our atrocities abroad. The government failed to adequately warn first responders about the contaminated air after 9/11, etc, etc. Talking about 9/11 is counterproductive. It diminishes the left’s credibility. The government lies about everything except 9/11, that is, the official conspiracy theory is basically true.

I’d like to look at Chomsky’s arguments which refute my inclination to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, to see where I slipped into heresy. I’ll quote from a video on the internet.

Chomsky starts off with: “Every authoritative system in the world gained from September 11….Power systems will exploit it to expand their own power over their primary enemies which are their domestic enemies, their own population….Did the Bush administration gain from it? Well though true, it doesn’t seem to tell me anything. It just says that they’re one of the power systems in the world. Did they plan it or know anything about it? This seems to me extremely unlikely.… Something would have leaked out, very likely. And if it had, they would have all been in front of a firing squad. That would have been the end of the Republican Party forever.”

My response: Suppose somebody did come forward. If he didn’t get any publicity, the government would simply ignore him. If he got some publicity, the government would say that he had no government affiliations, that he was under great stress, that he had a long history of psychiatric problems, etc, etc. The New York Times and other mainstream papers would down play the story and repeat the government allegations. When General Smedley Butler revealed that there was a coup being planned in 1934, the major newspapers discounted the story. Here are a few quotes about the media:

The CIA owns anyone of major significance in the major media.
William Colby, Former CIA Director (date unknown)

We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.
1971, William Casey, former CIA Director

It is a fact that corporate overlords working in secret collusion with the powers in Washington are intruding far too often in far too many newsrooms.
Dan Rather in New York Daily News 2/27/08

I believe that the element in the US government that carried out the 9/11 attacks had such confidence in their control of the media, the CIA, the FBI and Congress that they knew they would never be caught. One reason they could be so sure of their power was the government and media response to the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah federal office building in 1995. This was a botched demolition. Only half the building collapsed. Local TV reported that unexploded bombs were removed from the building. People who worked in the building reported being warned not to go to work that day. The local TV reports never made it onto the national networks. Benton Parten, a retired Air Force General and bomb expert, reported that the large amount of dust observed could only have been produced by bombs in contact with the cement beams of the building. (Recall that the official story was that the damage was caused by a bomb in a truck parked 30 feet away from the building.) Parten wrote to government officials and members of Congress, asking that the building not be torn down until it could be examined. Of course it was quickly torn down. A local group tried to form a Citizen’s Grand Jury to investigate the crime. They pointed out that the FBI had made no real investigation. Of course they were unsuccessful. Chomsky’s statement that the government would never have attempted the 9/11 attacks because they might be caught is out of touch of the reality of the state of American democracy. Chomsky should know better.

It would also be very dangerous to come forward. The people behind 9/11 are killers. Barry Jennings, a New York City Official, told that he had witnessed explosions in World Trade Center 7 before the twin towers fell. He ended up dead. The CIA has ways to kill people and make it look like a death from natural causes. At the very least, a whistle blower would lose his job, and perhaps thrown into jail for revealing classified information.

If there was an honest public inquiry into 9/11, I’ve heard from people in the 9/11 truth movement, that people have said they would come forward and testify, but there has never been an honest government sponsored investigation.

Then Chomsky proceeds to contradict the conspiracy theorists: “You couldn’t actually predict that the planes would actually have hit the WTC.”

My response: If it was an inside job, the government certainly had the technology to guide planes into buildings by remote control. They could have used radio beacons in the towers or in World Trade Center 7. If an amateur was flying one of the hijacked planes, he would have a hard time finding New York City. He would probably do something like fly to the ocean and follow the coast line or follow the Hudson River. The planes did not actually do anything like that. Instead one flew to a point south of the towers where it could have picked up a radio signal that guided it precisely into the South Tower. The other flew to a point north of the towers, and it too could have tuned in to a guiding radio signal that brought it to the North Tower. The fact that the planes did hit the towers suggests that they were controlled from the ground and were not flown by amateur pilots. Recall that the alleged hijackers had a hard time flying small planes.

Chomsky continues, “If you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence….There’s plenty of coincidences and unexplained phenomena…but if you look at a controlled scientific experiment, the same thing is true. When somebody carries out a controlled scientific experiment at the best laboratories, at the end there are lots of things that are unexplained and there are funny coincidences….”

My response: Suppose that on 9/11 World Trade Center (WTC) 1, 2, and 7 were destroyed by controlled demolitions. These are fairly common. They work as planned almost all of the time. When a demolition occurs it’s not considered a controlled scientific experiment. When you start your car it’s not a controlled scientific experiment. The physics and chemistry needed to understand how a car works are well understood. Years of work have perfected the automobile to the point where it works as predicted almost all of the time. When you go for a ride, only once in a great while are there any “unexplained coincidences or funny occurrences.” The same is true of controlled demolitions. Chomsky is muddying the waters by confusing science and technology. The fall of WTC1 and WTC2 were not caused by conventional controlled demolitions. WTC7’s fall, however, was a conventional demolition. To make sure that WTC1 and WTC2 fell, I believe that an unusually large amount of explosives were used. That’s why so much dust was produced and pictures show the tops of the towers exploding and huge beams flying hundreds of feet through the air.

The fall of the towers at almost free fall speed, the molten metal, the eye witness accounts, and the photos showing the tops of the towers exploding can easily be explained by assuming that explosives were employed. It’s impossible to explain the observed phenomena if the only sources of energy are the fires and gravity.

Chomsky’s remark that “anyone who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount the evidence” is contradicted by the fact that many scientists, including me, find the evidence for a controlled demolition compelling. For example, Stephen Jones, a very prominent scientist, presented evidence contradicting the official explanation of the fall of the towers years ago. He was forced into retirement from Brigham Young University for speaking out. At this writing 1194 architects and engineers signed a petition demanding of congress an independent investigation of 9/11. Many more scientists would speak out if they didn’t fear for their jobs. Jones and others recently showed in a peer reviewed scientific paper that there was Thermite, an explosive, in dust samples collected near ground zero.

At any rate, Chomsky’s remarks are ridiculous. I wonder if it’s possible to be brilliant of most issues and so wrong on others.

Chomsky is not the only leftist to support the government’s line on 9/11. The so called “gate keepers” share his views. For example, CounterPunch printed 3 articles written by Manual Garcia, a scientist, who works at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The first one, “The Physics of 911,” deals with the time for the towers to fall.

To understand Garcia’s calculation you have to know a little about the pancake theory. It’s simply that if a floor near the planes impact point collapses, the weight of the floors above comes crashing down onto the next floor and causes it to fail. The mass of falling material is increased and it comes crashing down onto the next floor and causes it to fail, and so on.  Garcia pulls 2 numbers out of thin air. One is that as the top floors fall, they lose .5 meters/sec of velocity when they collide with the floor below.  The other is that each impact takes .01 seconds.

He doesn’t consider the law of conservation of momentum (momentum is mass times velocity), which requires that on each impact the falling mass increases and consequently the velocity decreases. He doesn’t consider the energy required to grind up the concrete and other materials into fine dust. He doesn’t consider that most of the falling mass shot out sideways and never hit the floors below. He doesn’t consider the energy needed to expand the dust cloud against atmospheric pressure. He doesn’t consider that the top of the south tower toppled over and exploded high above the ground.  In other words, his calculation has nothing to do with 9/11. Nevertheless, Garcia “suggests” that the towers fall in 10 seconds, or close to free fall speed. Many people have done calculations, taking into account the laws of Physics, and concluded that the towers probably would not fall at all, and if they did they would take much longer than 10 seconds. But if you read Garcia’s article carefully you note that all he did was to consider a “suggestive numerical example.” In other words, if you make a few assumptions you get an answer in conformity with the official line. This subtlety seems to be beyond the powers of comprehension of the editors of Counterpunch. A full review of Garcia’s three 9/11 articles is beyond the scope of this work. Kevin Ryan has done a very thorough job of showing that Garcia’s calculations are worthless. Other later calculations supporting the official theory have been proposed that are more credible than Garcia’s (these calculations are also wrong), but the point that Counterpunch based their opinion on 9/11 on obviously bogus calculations.

I’ll next review some of things the left media has said about us “conspiracy theorists.”

“One trips over the fundamental idiocy of the 9/11 conspiracists in the first page of the book of one of their high priests, David Ray Griffin…”  Alexander Cockburn, editor CounterPunch, writer for the Nation and the LA Times.

“This crap is probably not worth a rational rebuttal, but I’m irritated enough to try.” David Corn, Washington editor of the Nation.

“This pattern of deception has not only fed diffuse public cynicism but has provided an opening for alternate theories of 9/11 to flourish. As these theories-propounded by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement-seep toward the edges of the mainstream, they have raised the specter of the return (if it ever left) of what Richard Hofstadter famously described as ‘the paranoid style in American politics.’” From “9/11: The Roots of Paranoia,” Christopher Hayes in the The Nation.

“At almost every progressive gathering where there’s a question and answer period, someone or other vehemently raises 9/11 and espouses a grand conspiracy theory. If you haven’t had the pleasure of enduring these rants, please let me share. From “Enough of 9/11 Conspiracies, Already” by  Matthew Rothschild in the Progressive.

There’s a problem these commentators might have in the future. Unlike the JFK assassination, there’s enough well accepted data to permit a scientific consensus on 9/11 to be reached. For example, videos show beyond any doubt that the towers fell at near free fall speeds. So history will show that all their theorizing, and all their pseudoscientific reasoning, will be shown to be garbage.

At any rate, the left wing establishment, as exemplified by the panelists at the Left Forum, is not interested in 9/11 or other conspiracies. Many are academics and perhaps fear for their jobs. To talk about conspiracies is heresy. There are boundaries that cannot be crossed. You can talk about Marxism, about injustice, about welfare for the rich, about unions, about establishing a new economic order, etc, etc. That should be enough. The left media will help you to understand these issues. They have made a pact with the establishment, which regards them as a mechanism for providing the appearance of free speech, which exists only for people with very small audiences. The ecumenical council has spoken. Fall in line or be labeled a paranoid idiot.

One of the important lessons of 9/11 is that the left establishment can’t be trusted. They, like Chomsky, are right almost all of the time. This creates credibility. But on something that’s really important, like 9/11, they’re all wrong. Barrie Zwicker in his book “Towers of Deception,” has discussed the “gate keepers,” including Chomsky, in much greater detail than included here.

We can get a hint on what is really important by looking at what the left establishment press is not talking about.  For example, consider an article by Justine Sharrock that appeared in Mother Jones magazine about the “Oath Keepers.” The author did a very good job, and spent much time in discovering who the “Oath Keepers” are and what they believe in. Their main fear is that martial law will be declared and democracy will end in this country. They have sworn to defend the constitution by resisting, with force, illegal actions of the U. S. government. Are the fears of the “Oath Keepers” justified? The article doesn’t address the question. If fact none of the major left wing magazines address the question. Why? Perhaps the people in charge feel that since so many right wing “nuts” believe the danger is real, it must be wrong. One of the tenets of the official religion is that right wingers are always wrong. But maybe they’re been told by the establishment to keep away from the issue.

I’m upset that much of the justified hostility people feel towards crooked politicians, has been channeled by right wingers against good government programs, such as Social Security, and not the military industrial intelligence complex that pulls the strings. The right wingers have been a lot smarter than the left in directing popular anger. The 9/11 truth movement can, however, be a uniting force. The people in the 9/11 truth movement are of all political persuasions. I’ve talked to many of them at meetings. They all believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Some believe that global warming is a hoax. Some believe that we should go back on the gold standard and get rid of the Federal Reserve. Some are Libertarians. All share a distrust of the establishment. My experience is that it is not hard to shift their opinions to the left.

I mentioned my affliction. It makes me fight for lost causes. I got it growing up in World War II. It’s a naïve belief that the guilty should be punished, that truth will prevail, and that the good guys will win out in the end, no matter the odds.


Noam Chomsky, Chomsky Dispels 9/11 Conspiracies with Sheer Logic, 10/29/07

Jack Blood, New Information on the Death of 911 Eyewitness Barry Jennings Seems to Point to Foul Play, 4/16/09,

The Business Plot to Overthrow Roosevelt,

Kevin Ryan, Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don’t Exist, 12/27/06 (

Alexander Cockburn, The Age of Irrationality, The 9/11 Conspiracists and the Decline of the American Left, 11/28/06,

David Corn, When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad, 3/1/02

Matthew Rothschild, Enough of 9/11 Conspiracies, Already, 9/11/06

Christopher Hayes, 9/11 The Roots of Paranoia, 12/9/06

Justine Sharrock, Oath Keepers and the age of Treason, Mother Jones, March, April 2010.

Barrie Zwicker, Towers of Deception, the Media Coverup of 9/11, New Society Publishers, 2006.