The Progressive: "Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already" -- MY REPLY

[RedSock]

On September 11, 2006, Matthew Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive, published a lengthy commentary on the magazine's website: "Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already".

It was posted at Common Dreams the following day, which is where I saw it.

I took great exception to what he wrote and composed a lengthy reply. (Rothschild's piece was 3,500 words and mine is fairly lengthy also -- too long to paste the whole thing here.)

I sent it into Common Dreams, but it's been two days, so I don't think they're running it. (I also sent it to Truthout.)

[Sven77]

1. another gatekeeper

promoting the fake left/right paradigm. they can no longer ignore it. he is just towing the party line.

http://progressive.org/about

any relation to the Rothschilds Bank of England ?

[RedSock]

2. one nice thing about the 9/11 movement

it's letting us find out who is truly progressive and who is a fraud.

[mirandapriestly]

3. YES! It's great, every time one of these "progressive"

sources pumps up the official CT, I think "oh good, there's another one I won't have to read..". It makes me curious if a lot of supposed "progressive" media is fake. i.e.: the Nation, I started noticing other subtle "perception control " issues with them after they came out against 9-11 truth.

[Sven77]

4. my favorite quote I transcribed from the LA Symposium

"Now my thesis is that 9/11 is not just an issue next to other issues, it is the over-arching dominant issue. If you do not address 9/11 you get nothing. You will not stop the wars, you will not stop injustice." Webster Griffin Tarpley - 9/11 LA Symposium

[Norrin Radd]

6. If you recall, The Nation was dismissing election fraud in 2004,

mostly via David Corn:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041129/corn

[Nozebro]

9. You too? Me, also. YES, "The Nation" (a FORD Foundation-funded) -- a

formerly progressive opinion magazine is now performing its patriotic duties as:

* Gatekeeper

* Voluntary Patsie/punching bag for RWingers

[DrDebug]

11. I like to know the relation to the Rothschild family as well

Since Rothschild is not an ancient surname and they were called Bauer and changed their surname to Rothschild. You can only change your surname to a new surname which does not exist, therefore there were no Rothschilds in Germany. And what are the odds that there were Rothschilds anywhere else?

And they are probably still the richest family in the world since wealth doesn't disappear, it merely grows. They were the richest family in the beginning of the 20th century so it's very likely that they are still at the top.

And there was a small office of ABN AMRO in WTC1. Since that office only had 20 employees it didn't seem worth mentioning because their main operations are at LaSalle Bank, however the Equity part is merged with Rothschild as ABN AMRO Rothschild. And how many people do you need for the equity part in New York City, because that division consists of only 110 dedicated specialists according to their own website, so was the ABN AMRO in WTC1 officially called ABN AMRO Rothschild?

[DrDebug]

12. It was the mortage division which was still there

Because ABN AMRO moved out Two WTC (no one BTW) just prior to 9/11 (coincidence right?)

World Trade Center tenants wait for word

September 12, 2001 Posted: 4:56 AM EDT (0856 GMT)
(...)
ABN Amro recently consolidated operations out of the World Trade Center
(...)

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/BUSINESS/asia/09/12/attack.tenants/

It was one of the companies who for some odd reason moved out just before 9/11.

Edit: Well at least the Rothschild get a sympathy point for not jeopardizing the safety of their employees. There is some sceptism though now whether or not they knew about 9/11 in advance though...

[KJF]

5. Good article

I agree with most of it and have a couple of points:

Rothschild says:

And, as Debunking 9/11 Myths notes, "a Cleveland air traffic controller assigned to Flight 93 heard signs of a struggle in the cockpit, followed shortly by screaming."

Actually, I think this must refer to the hijack (which Cleveland heard), not the crash (the audio of which was later obtained from the CVR). If PM really made this mistake (i.e. it's not just an error by Rothschild), then it won't look good for them.

Re Almihdhar there are a couple of points that could be added:
(a) I have six sources that say the NSA was listening to Al Mihdhar's calls from the US to Yemen, including the DOJ's Office of Inspector General and FBI agent Dan Coleman who, after 9/11, read the dispacthes the NSA drafted about (some of?) the calls. In addition, there was an operation (perhaps called Catcher's Mitt) monitoring Al Qaeda operatives in the US before 9/11 - the Joint Inquiry confirmed the NSA was still picking up Al Qaeda intercepts from the US in 2001;
(b) The CIA admit openly they were following Al Mihdhar and the Al Hazmi brothers around Malaysia and this was a big operation. The CIA says they lost him, but according to KSM, Al Mihdhar thought they were followed to LA;
(c) Rumsfeld was told on 9/11 that three of the American 77 hijackers had been followed "since Millenium and Cole";
Link: http://www.outragedmoderates.org/images/cambone_notes_9-11-01_9.53PM.pdf
(d) According to 9/11 Commission staff director Eleanor Hill, the hijackers were "right in the centre of the FBI's counterterrorism coverage", meaning they associated with a whole bunch of terrorist suspects the FBI was investigating;

You could also have thrown in:
(e) The surveillance of the Hamburg cell;
(f) The other hijackers known to intelligence agencies. In total I count 11 hijackers that were known to intelligence agencies before 9/11, although not all of them were as well known as Al Mihdhar.

The idea is right though, when people like Rothschild bring up no-planeism, we should hit back with the hijackers. The argument the CIA and NSA know more than they are telling is absolutely stone-cold nailed-on.

[canetoad]

7. Your reply

is a bloody good read. Thanks for taking it up to Rothschild.

[FoxOnTheRun]

8. What's his name again, is this a joke?

[RedSock]

10. has the progressive removed rothschild's article???

http://progressive.org/mag_wx091106

all that is there is a number "2"

interesting.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Your reply is a very good piece, RedSock. In some ways it's

too soft on Rothschild.

His piece is just one more regurgitation of the same article/opinion piece that's being repeated and reprinted over and over again and is presented as original writing. The uniformity of regurgitation on this across the board is no less than amazing.

And of course, as in all the other "nothing to see here move along" pieces, there is zero analysis of the true reason so many people realize that the collection of myths passing as the official story is inherently untrustworthy.

I am still waiting for what passes as the "mainstream left wing press" to do a real article on why so many don't believe the official collection of myths, and to call for a serious comprehensive investigation into what really happened.

Now for the picky nuts and bolts part. I found a typo in your article on the blog. In paragraph seven you write "...imprisonment with charges or trial." It appears that should be "without."

Keep up the great work.