Newsday: "Sept. 11 conspiracy theories abound" (follow-up on chaplain)

[JackRiddler]

Anguished Imam resigns as FDNY chaplain
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-imam01,0,884205.story

Expressing anguish that his public doubts about who was behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks "had opened wounds for people," the Fire Department's new Muslim chaplain resigned Friday, shortly before he was to be officially sworn in.

(...)

Mayor Michael Bloomberg applauded Habib's resignation.

"This is not a person who should be representing a department that was devastated on Sept. 11, answering their spiritual needs," he said.

Asked about the selection process, Bloomberg said, "If there are questions about that to be raised, you may rest assured, I will be raising them."

---

Sept. 11 conspiracy theories abound
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-con1001,0,6591775,print.story

October 1, 2005

(...)

Four years after the attacks, thousands of 9/11 conspiracy theories abound...

(...) Nicholas Levis, a founder and correspondent for 911truth.org, say a distrust of the government and a failure to comprehensively address what happened and why has fostered questions.

Levis noted that a Zogby poll... showed 66 percent of those questioned want the 9/11 probe reopened. He noted that the poll also showed that 49 percent of New York City residents believe federal leaders had foreknowledge of the attacks...

Regenhard, who lost her firefighter son, Christian, on 9/11, said the failure to answer questions has allowed conspiracy theories to flourish. "There is a huge and growing number of people out there who are saying there are too many unanswered questions," she said.

© Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

[JackRiddler]

1. 911Truth.org gloss on latest Newsday articles

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051001023512308

QUOTE:

We note simply that Habib's comments were not moral in nature. He raised doubts about the facts of the US government's 9/11 story. The issue therefore is not whether he offended anyone by answering Newsday's questions, but whether there is a factual basis to his skepticism.

Will the Fire Department ask future candidates for chaplain to first declare their views on who was really responsible for the September 11th attacks? Will belief in the official story, with all of its omissions and absurdities, become a requirement for service in government?

[timtom]

5. Don't forget...

Cynthia McKinney basically asked a question or two. And she was immediately vilified as whacko, nutcase, looney, dangerous.

It's kinda like, "Isn't the capital of Florida Tallahassee?"
"Wow, that's really crazy (to ask that question). You're a dangerous lunatic."

"Hey, is weather modification at all possible?"
"We will tolerate no more of THAT, sir! You've gone over the edge!"

[EFerrari]

2. So, now it's immoral to question propaganda?

That's essentially what Bloomberg is saying. Very disturbing.

[sarcasmo]

4. You haven't read the KKKarl Rove memo yet?

All protesters are immoral and hate the new AMERIKA.

[bpilgrim]

3. The Buildings that fell in their own FOOTPRINTs were PULLED/CD

WTC7 flash video...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

psst... pass the word :bounce:

peace

[TomClash]

6. These statements by alleged Americans are particularly disturbing

Scoppetta said it was disturbing that anyone would harbor such views given the evidence about the attack. "I especially have difficulty reconciling those views with a person serving in the NYC fire department."

<snip>

"He has no place in the New York Fire Department," said retired firefighter Jack Duggan of Rockland County. "I lost too many friends that day to listen to that rubbish."

"For a supposedly educated man, that's an incredibly ignorant statement," said George Baade of Ladder 14 in East Harlem. "His loyalty obviously doesn't lie with us, or with the United States."

<snip>

"He was vetted, there was a background check and a fingerprint check, and there was nothing negative that came up," he said. "We don't usually consider political views. This is an unusual situation."

[drduffy]

7. I am one of the believers

in the MIHOP hypothesis. My background in philosophy of science/logic and later a doctorate in experimental clinical psychology biases my strongly towards following the data, the evidence. If you simply do that, you end up, I believe, realizing there is a hell of a prima facie case against BushCo. A lot of questions that need to be answered and which have consistently been ignored by BushCo. And for motive? Just check out the PNAC.

So, if somebody wants to argue the data, that is one thing. If somebody simply dismisses the arguments 'out of hand' then I suspect denial, intelligence issues or hidden agendas. There is simply no coherent argument NOT to demand a full accounting of the data's anomolies. Anything less is obvious obfuscation. And that is BushCo.'s other name.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lcordero2]

9. there are many ways to interpret this

"This is not a person who should be representing a department that was devastated on Sept. 11, answering their spiritual needs,"

The way that I interpret this is that Bloomberg and Bennett are cut from the same cloth.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/america.attack/

[graphixtech]

10. Great analysis!

"We note simply that Habib's comments were not
moral in nature. He raised doubts about the facts
of the US government's 9/11 story. The issue therefore
is not whether he offended anyone by answering Newsday's
questions, but whether there is a factual basis to his skepticism."
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051001023512308




The top 15 reasons to doubt the official story of Sept. 11, 2001
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

------------------------------------------------------
(another excellent analysis about 9/11 questions)
Threshold Fears and Unanswered Questions about 9/11
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050307174111734
By Peter Phillips (the Director of Project Censored)
commondreams.org March 6, 2005
(editorial)

Overall concerns with the official version of 9/11 have been published and discussed by scholars and writers around the world including: Jim Mars, Nafeez Ahmed, Michael Ruppert, Cynthia McKinney, Barrie Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Michel Chossudovsky and many others. The response to most has been to label these discussions as conspiracy theories unworthy of media coverage or further review. Pursuit of a critical analysis of these questions is undermined by the psychological barrier about 9/11 issues as threshold concepts - too awful to even consider.

We may be on the borders of discovery regarding the possibility of a great evil within our own government, and perhaps others outside as well. We must step past the threshold and have the courage to ask the questions, demand answers, and support research into all aspects of this American tragedy. Perhaps the closet isn't as dark and as fearful as we envision. If we don't courageously look and search into the deepest regions of our fears how can we assure our children and ourselves a safe and honest future?

Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State
University and Director of Project Censored, a media research
organization.

(This powerful ETC recent video of Retired AF Col. Robert Bowman
raises blood pressure. Few minutes to load)
http://truthemergency.us/movies/BobBowman2.mov



Photo of Peter Phillips (David Ray Griffin seated) speaking at The National Press Club on July 22, 2005
http://truthemergency.us/pages/VideoAudio.html




A Three-day Urgent and Historic Event!

Emergency Truth Convergence MIDWEST
October 28-30 in Kansas City, MO
http://truthemergency.us/pages/Regional.html

National leaders representing a variety of critical issues
and political perspectives. A rare opportunity to bypass the
corporate media's silence and get current news directly from
representatives and leading activists.

[pberq]

19. Thanks for your post. graphixtech

Let's keep the 911 Truth Movement alive!

[AZCat]

11. I do not support this.

I (as regular readers of this forum are probably aware) do not support LIHOP/MIHOP. I don't think the Bush Administration engineered any of this, although they might dream of it. I think the "9/11 truth movement" has difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff. But I do not think that accepting the proclamations of the Bush Administration should be a requirement for public officials (or FDNY chaplains).

I think people should be allowed to publicly question official stories. In fact, I think people should develop an internal dialogue regarding ALL statements from officials, and when in doubt, should make it external.

My frustration with the "9/11 truth movement" (and therefore this forum) generally rises not from people asking questions, but from two other sources - people asking the same question again and again (typically when an ongoing or previous discussion is readily available) or when specious logic is used to support claims. I am glad this forum is here and have tried to answer questions honestly (although I AM human). I just wish such questioning applied to everything and was more widespread (and accepted). After all, we have a president who questions the "official story" on evolution and global warming, a vice-president who questions the "official story" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (along with just about every other official in the BWH), etc. Why is it so dangerous to have a FDNY chaplain that has doubts about an admittedly confusing event?

This fiasco appears to be a continuation of the general philosophy of the White House, where feedback is limited to praise (re. "Brownie") both up and down the heirarchy and questioners of those above them are quickly removed.

[Kevin Fenton]

14. Why are you here?

You say you don't believe in LIHOP or MIHOP (I don't either), so why are you frustrated with the 9/11 truth movement?
Are you in favour of some sort of Let It Happen Through Incompetence On Purpose theory (like MerutioATC or LARED seem to be) or what?

[pox americana]

15. I think he means "I do not support this involuntary resignation."

That subject line had me confused for a minute too. :)

[AZCat]

17. Whoops - you are correct.

My apologies - I was uncaffienated at the time.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. I am positively delighted that this has now seen the light in NY print!

Levis noted that a Zogby poll... showed 66 percent of those questioned want the 9/11 probe reopened. He noted that the poll also showed that 49 percent of New York City residents believe federal leaders had foreknowledge of the attacks...

[JackRiddler]

16. Sadly it has not!

Just discovered this article was not in the paper - only in the online edition!

I guess there is a parallel here as well: This news item is allowed only in the 9/11 forum/dungeon, instead of latest breaking news where it belongs.

I'm tired atm and don't know whether I wish to organize a mini-campaign to shame Newsday into printing their own fucking article.

Grrrr...

[pberq]

20. I share your frustration, Riddler

But on the bright side, people like David Ray Griffin are out there speaking and writing books.

In the audio tape posted above, Griffin talks about the need for us to combine forces and get the word out on our own, since the MSM will not touch any of this, no matter how compelling the evidence.

[WhiteTara]

13. It is so hard to believe one's government

would act in such a terrorist manner against its own citizens. However, I remember Kent State and it was hard to believe that the NG would kill its fellow citizens.

I feel confident that it will be known that the * administration will finally be forced to accept responsibility for their actions.
IMPEACH BUSH AND SEND THEM ALL TO THE HAGUE!

[Ferry Fey]

18. Difficult to access previous discussions here

"My frustration with the "9/11 truth movement" (and therefore this forum) generally rises not from people asking questions, but from two other sources - people asking the same question again and again (typically when an ongoing or previous discussion is readily available) or when specious logic is used to support claims."

I don't know if what you think of as "readily available" is how I'd define it.

The current threads in this section consist of 12 pages with about 75 threads each -- around 900 threads. The archives are not currently available. The search function is not available to those who don't pay.

People are always going to ask the same questions over and over. Fact of life on the Internets. The choice is to be stingy with letting them know some answers, answer them yourself politely and patiently, or point them to some FAQs.

I'm a real fan of FAQs, and I think there should be more of them that are readily accesible. Trouble is people tend to literally think of them as questions asked, when they are really better suited to refuting stupid statements people make.