Jump to navigation
When I first heard Rovic's song Reichstag Fire I was so impressed. I invited David to sing at our benefit/fundraiser for the 1st San Francisco International Inquiry into 9/11, a show entitled- Behind Every Terrorist- There is a Bush (which was made into a one hour show and shown on Free Speech TV, and available online, as well as the first half of a DVD- the rest containing heavier speeches/a documentary on the SF Int'l Inquiry.)
I was actually horrifically disappointed that David didn't sing Reichstag Fire at the Music/Comedy event where he was the featured musician. He said it was because he hadn't memorized the words. I flew him to San Francisco for the SF Inquiry, just to play that song, and he still hadn't memorized the words, and used a music stand to hold the lyrics. Just because he wrote "the lyrics" didn't mean he believed the words or the message.
I know David Roivcs a little, as well as Norman Solomon, and Noam Chomsky, and I still cannot fathom their refusal to even look at the arguments/evidence which clearly indicates to me that 9/11 was the most botched special operation in US history.
One of my heroes, Aung Sung Suu Kyi wrote: "It is not power that corrupts, but fear -- fear of losing power and fear of the scourge of those who wield it."
I can only think that it is fear that blinds a good number of people from seeing what seems to be obvious facts to others. At a workshop in St. Louis on overcoming psychological barriers to 9/11, a woman brilliantly identified, what we are dealing with, when she said, "With most problems, people ask 'what can I do?' But 9/11 is so big, people must ask themselves, 'Who am I?'"
Are we good Germans, willing to support the rise of the Fourth Reich? Or are we part of the White Rose Society trying to awaken our fellow citizens, and stop the madmen waging war on our liberties, our thoughts, our perception of reality, the world.
I am a college drop-out, but I don't think it is a matter of degrees or intellect to understand the basic facts about 9/11 or to recognize the blatant lies/actions that followed in its wake, I think it is a matter of courage, spirit, solidarity with the bulk of humanity, rather than merging allegiances with the establishment or an elite group that feels they have the right to kill, control, lie, use, manipulate people to serve their interests.
We are working to send copies of 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press, in many ways a very gentle book, simply pointing out the enormous contradictions within the official story itself- exposing the enormity of the Lie we have been fed, demanding answers to the questions raised- and a real (not a cover-up) investigation. What is most incomprehensible to me about Rovics, Solomon and Chomsky's attacks on the Truth Movement, is their failure to recognize the official story as an enormous Lie, which, if exposed, crumbles the foundation for the entire "bogus" wars on "terrorism" and "dissent."
Carol BrouilletPublisher of the Deception DollarCo-Founder of the Northern California 9/11 Truth AllianceProducer of the weekly radio show- Questioning War- Organizing ResistanceGreen Party Congressional Candidate for Congress in CA District 14 (4-Impeachment, Truth, Peace...)
I think Rovics is great - but I think that's one of his WORST songs.
The likely reason Rovics didn't sing that song is evident from his new essay:
"...The truth is, in fact, out there. Much of it is certainly still there to be discovered, but many fundamental, essential truths are already known.
The truth - that, for example, the CIA funded and armed Al-Qaeda and the Taleban, that a tiny minority of very wealthy people control much of the U.S. government and the “mainstream” (corporate/”public”) media, that the U.S. military systematically goes around the world overthrowing democracies, propping up dictatorships, and killing millions of people with bombs - is what the progressive media is reporting on hourly, daily, weekly or monthly. These are the truths that people in the U.S. most need to “wake up” to. These are the truths that are systematically unreported or severely under-reported by the corporate press, which, even in the age of the Internet, is still where the vast majority of people in the U.S. get their news, and thus, their understanding of the world.
These corporate media entities and the genocidal, ecocidal plutocracy they serve are the “gatekeepers” that need to be exposed. The truths they are trying to hide from us are the truths that need to be understood, and acted upon. The progressive media that is trying to do just that needs to be supported, not undermined with essentially baseless accusations (legitimate criticisms and suggestions notwithstanding).
The people who are trying, with some degree of success, to undermine these basic endeavors of the progressive movement and the progressive media need to be exposed for what they are - whether they fall into the category of well-meaning but misguided fanatics or undercover government agents quite purposefully and systematically working to spread disinformation and sow confusion and distrust. And, beyond any reasonable doubt, the “Truth Movement” contains both of these elements.
To both of these groups I beseech you - wake up! Wake up to the real, easily verifiable conspiracies - which are extremely big ones - and quit trying to distract us with all the nonsense about gatekeepers and controlled demolitions!"[url=http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/07/8126/]The Truth About the 9/11 ‘Truth Movement’[/url]
9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says
"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know..it - now."
Patrick Henry, 1775
The hand-wringing, foot shuffling and mewling may now resume, and FFS remember to keep those gazes averted.
Originally posted by HUAC:[b]"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth. ...
The hand-wringing, foot shuffling and mewling may now resume, and FFS remember to keep those gazes averted.[/b]
The hand-wringing, foot shuffling and mewling may now resume, and FFS remember to keep those gazes averted.[/b]
Admittedly, Patrick Henry may be your best eye-witness, but what, in this case is the "painful" truth? Is it facing the truth that Cheney, et al, are actually capable of gratuitous mass homocide? Say it isn't so! (holding ears and humming loudly).
Many activists focus on how to effect social change in society, including organizing others, critiquing US foreign policy, and opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other activists have looked at the circumstances surrounding 9-11 and feel outraged that the US appears complicit in the event. These two movements differ in certain respects. However, they are not mutually exclusive.
I see no benefit in pitting one against the other. To do so is to insist there is only one path of social responsibility, which of course is not correct. Further, many skeptics of 9-11 have become more activist. And some activists have added 9-11 to their areas of concern.
So there has been a huge synergy within each area of study. These are all very good things in a proper democracy. It is important to respect all activists who remain committed to social change rather than creating disputes that really have little chance of improving society.
Sorry, your conciliatory approach has the air of reasonableness, but if I was in a court case I'd rather not have a sympathetic witness who testifies that the hand of my attacker was guided by a malevolent blue demon, invisible to those who refuse to accept the truth.
There is a considerable distance between accepting a strong possibility of some US "complicity" in 9/11, and the claim that the towers collapsed from "controlled demolition" or that a missile hit the pentagon, rather than the disappeared plane and passengers of flight 77.
Without getting into endless disputes over details which are abundantly discussed elsewhere, my objections (take 'em or leave 'em) to these claims are based on my understandings of: physics; logistics; plausible execution of black operations, and magical thinking in human psychology when an unexpected major catastrophe takes place.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY]Flight 175 Impossible Speed[/url] YouTube
VNE(limiting speed) for Boeing 767 is 593 mph @35K feet(thinner air - less drag)
Flight 175 estimated velocity was anywhere from 503mph(MIT)-590mph(FEMA)at ~700 feet when speeding toward trade tower. Stunt pilot?
"Not without a tailwind of 100-150 mph" over NYC that day, says Boeing pilot===
[url=http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm][b]FBI:[/b][/url] Osama bin Laden NOT WANTED for 9/11?
[ 18 April 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
I posted this in the comments on David Rovics' blog:
David. I love your music, but I was quite disappointed when I read your 9/11 essay on Rabble.ca, and have been following your appearances on the web since then.
I wanted to ask you a couple of questions directly, and thought your blog would be the best place to do so.
First, I wanted to tell you that I was disappointed because I felt your article was written based on your emotions, and did not actually discuss any factual information. I understand and share your frustration regarding the abrasiveness of some 9/11 Truthers, but feel that your comments contribute to the divisiveness that many of us on The Left are trying to patch up.
After reading your article, it seemed quite clear to me that you had not examined the evidence of 9/11 fully, and when questioned on Kevin Barrett's radio show, you refused (or were unable) to name any of these "scientists" who have convinced you that those investigating 9/11 should move on to more "verifiable conspiracies". You source only the dubious Popular Mechanics article as your evidence (which has been completely refuted in the book Debunking 9/11 Debunking by Dr. David Ray Griffin). Can you name even one of these scientists? Can you explain how they convinced you?
I'd also really like a clarification on where you stand on re-investigating 9/11. There seem to be a few contradictions in your comments on the issue.
In your article, you seem to be attempting to convince those investigating alternative 9/11 theories that "there is nothing to see here, so move along". Yet, on Barrett's radio show you say you DO support a new investigation and that we need to find out the truth. This is a little confusing to some of us. Should we, in your opinion, give up our pressure for a new investigation (as you suggest in your article) or continue investigating (as you suggest on the radio)?
Also, I have read comments by a fellow who said he had correspondence with you, and that you said you agreed with acclaimed journalist Robert Fisk's position on the issue
Here is Mr. Fisk's opinion published in the Independent newspaper,
[i]I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.
I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".[/i]
You have been quoted as saying "I agree with Fisk's article! much shorter than mine, too, and better..."
[url=http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396101.html?c=on]http://www.indym...(scroll down to comments)
Is this your comment? If so, how do you reconcile this with this paragraph from your article?:
[i]When you do look beyond this mass of misinformation for real experts, you will easily find pilots who can discount the claims of the Truthers that maneuvering the planes into the towers was a particularly challenging thing for people with only a little flight training to pull off. You will easily find mechanical engineers familiar with the structural flaws in the design of the WTC that allowed it to collapse in the first place, and physicists who can explain why such large buildings would appear to be imploding as if in a controlled demolition, or why people on the scene would have thought they were hearing explosions, etc.[/i]
Again, many of us on The Left who support the 9/11 Truth Movement would appreciate a simple clarification of your position.
At the moment, many government apologists and defenders of the "official story" are using your article to support their argument that 9/11 Truthers are just a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists. If you truly do support a new investigation, and think that the truth about 9/11 is worth investigating, would you be willing to pen another essay to clarify the contradictions in your comments, and set the record straight?
Thanks for your time, and keep playin' those great songs!
David's appearance on Kevin Barrett's radio show can be heard here:
[ 23 April 2008: Message edited by: Discordian Princess ]
This isn't about a rabble article. I'm moving this to international news and politics.