Doug Thompson attacks 9/11 research again

The pressure appears to be getting to US political commentator and well-known, anti-Bush journalist/blogger Doug Thompson who has launched yet another extraordinary unprovoked attack on 9/11 research.

In this, his third recent assault on the topic, Thompson dispenses with any actual debate or argument and seeks to frame the search for 9/11 truth as solely the preoccupation of lunatics and con artists and is now even prepared to resort to arbitrarily screaming anti-Semitism towards sites he doesn't agree with on the matter.

According to Thompson's revelatory hypothesis, 9/11 research is essentially to be truncated into 'wild 9/11 Conspiracy theory' (which I guess is code for ideas Thompson doesn't agree with) and Thompson is enriching our primitive minds with juxtaposing '9/11 Conspiracy' (whatever that means) and his desire to throw about the term 'Holocaust denial'.

If all else fails scream that at your opponents, and Thompson through his own tirades has identified himself as a denier of inquiry who will resort to insults and ad hominem attacks, and denying that there is just simply no broad international rally behind 9/11 scholasticism.

One wonders, does he feel this same sliver of contempt for the familes of victims of 9/11, many of whom have criticized the 9/11 Commission ? And let us not forget the firefighters and paramedics at the World Trade Center who testified unambiguously and repeatedly that explosions were going off, and who's testimony was not allowed to be included in the Kean/Hamilton 9/11 quango. Are these people, in Doug's eyes, by throwing doubt on both the official narrative and it's investigation, fair game to be lumped into Thompson's worldview ?

Thompson also attacks what he percieves as 'conspiracy sites asking for money' and tries to paint interest in 9/11 (which is enormous even according to 9/11 conformists such as National Geographic's Nicole Rittenmeyer) as some kind of curious crackpot cult to which he is but a learned onlooker dishing out sanctimous finger-wagging reprimands from aloft:

Check out the web sites that promote the various, and ridiculous conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and you will find that just about all of them ask for money. The same is true for the so-called "news" sites that support these outlandish conspiracy fantasies.

Which web sites ? Does this include sites like Prisonplanet and Rense both of whom his articles appear on, or is Doug's latest outburst because many sites may have now turned their back on him, or at least heavily crticised him for his diatribes about 9/11 ?

Thompson's attacks are ironic, as apparently the illegitimacy of asking for money from alternative news excludes Doug Thompson himself who's site is plastered with click ads for Dell laptop batteries, cable TV, 'intimate dating sites', constipation and diarrhea medicine, car insurance and various spyware screen savers.

Because Doug's latest article is so utterly stupid and inflammatory one may be strongly inclined to believe he wrote it only to get more visits to his site and clicks on his ads.

Well it's no surprise. To many, Thompson has successfully dented his image as a reporter of conscience with his ear to the ground of US politics, and transformed himself overnight into a book-burning establishment buffoon gliding en pointe to the music of political correctness and the tune of the Zelikow/Kean/Hamiliton quango ensemble.

Doug says of these sites which he doesn't name:

All link to the same, discredited "sources" for their claims.

Can you give an example Doug ?

Do you think 911research.wtc7.net is a such a source ? It seems a fairly straightforward site to me offering a wealth of background info on the WTC as well as essays on the official theories. I would call it essential reading for everyone interested in 9/11 no matter what their personal view or theory on 9/11 is.

Is Cooperative Research such a source ? Which presents detailed timelines on 9/11 all from mainstream sources and on a range of other issues ? Which Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline inspired Professor David Ray Griffin to write his books ? Again, I would call it essential reading on the topic.

Is the New York Times which managed to get the oral histories released recounting multiple eyewitness accounts of explosive demolition a 'discredited source' ?

Are CNN, Fox Radio and MTV which all recently gave platforms to Alex Jones to talk about 9/11 in the same class ?

What is a 'discredited source' and who's doing the discrediting, is it Doug ? It must be right then...

Our government failed on many levels to respond to information that might have prevented the attacks but incompetence does not prove a conspiracy. America has a long, tainted history of getting caught with its pants down.

The failure theory is certainly a common one, yet such enormous destructive failure has been met with not one formal reprimand or dismisal according to Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton. Only a drugged, electrocuted and insane Moussaoui is on trial to kick start the 9/11 Hollywood season, yet neither Bush nor Cheney would even testify under oath ¹ or permit a transcript recorded for the 9/11 Quango, which should be noted, was directed by someone who years before 9/11 wrote the script and political atmosphere for 'cataclysmic terror' as well as Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine later on.

Those who prey on fear and paranoia to promote their kooky conspiracy theories dishonor those passengers on Flight 93. They dishonor the innocent victims who died on that day and the first responders who lost their lives trying to save those victims.

How does it do that ? For many it's not even automatically a case of they know what happened, a lot of people will claim they don't know which Doug himself might err-towards instead of trying to defecate on 9/11 inquiry as matter of principle and elevate the rationale for endless war and the rewriting of society with his latest aritcle in doing so. Surely, some of the people who have abused the memory of the victims of 9/11 are those who have used it as a mandate for perpetual conflict and despotism.

Of course, it's not that Doug Thompson isn't entitled to his firmly held view on 9/11, it's that he is so obsessed with childishly, blindly and deficiently attacking those who are not at all satisfied about the official accounts(s) of events, indeed who are deeply concerned by them that is so observable. Doug's position is in wrongly assuming that those who hold a different position on 9/11 are automatically of mal-intent and dubious character obsessed by nonsense, and that is a massive flaw in Thompson's prospectus. The reality is many are deeply motivated, based on what they feel are grave anomalies and questions unanswerable within 9/11 orthodoxy to prevent a repeat of it.

In writing yet another of these unprovoked vitriolic pieces, Doug is giving succor and sanctury to those, who in his words, regard the US Constituition as 'just a piece of paper' and will cling onto 9/11 to wield hijacked-American might to inflict death, destruction, torture, pain and misery around the world, misleading troops into a war for CFR/PNAC dreams of empire/Halliburton/defence manufacturer and oil company coffers, and according to Philip Zelikow of the 9/11 Commission to 'protect Israel' ³, while simultaneously exporting police state despotism and exploitation to allies like the UK.

Doug Thompson can and should vigourously disagree with others on 9/11 if that's truly how he feels but the way he is doing it, he has become the best friend Bush, Cheney and the Neocons could ever have and is alienating many people who once admired his work in doing so.

Update: Doug Thompson has since 'pulled' the article, first blaming it on his cat who was ill, now he's replaced it with one about Bush and the White House by a different author. I'm very sorry about his cat.

The original article is on letsroll911

9/11 Doug Thompson capitolhillblue Capitol Hill Blue Twin Towers WTC WTC 7