Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Path From 9/11

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted September 14, 2006.


Until there's a legitimate, independent investigation of the events of 9/11, we'll never move on.
9/11 trailer

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Rory O'Connor

Is the Tyranny of Right-Wing Radio Coming to an End?
The notion that the days of right-wing dominance of the airwaves may well be numbered is rapidly becoming a reality.
Jun 20, 2008

Talk Radio's Last Stand?
Talk radio "shock jocks" are fretting publicly about the supposed return of the long-defunct Fairness Doctrine.
Jun 11, 2008

Laura Ingraham: Right-Wing Radio's High Priestess of Hate
Shock radio host Ingraham is a master of sounding funny and appealing while dishing out the same hate speech as Sean Hannity.
Jun 7, 2008

More stories by Rory O'Connor

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Now that all the books have been published and promoted, the Hollywood films have all opened (and closed), the radio and television commentaries and commemorative specials have been broadcast, the dramas (and the so-called "docudramas") and even a handful of reality-based, actual "documentaries" have aired and been argued over, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, on the web and in the blogosphere ... at long last, and after all has been said (but so little really has been done), where do we find ourselves? And where do we go from here, on the long, confusing, circuitous and still ever-painful path from 9/11?

To answer that question, we first must come to truly understand what happened in and to America five years ago, how it happened and -- most importantly -- why. Yet the plethora of attack-related media that has exploded onto our public consciousness in the runup to the fifth "anniversary" of the terror attacks has done nothing to help us understand any of it. Yes, books have been sold, theatres filled, ratings raised, circulations increased, reputations enhanced, but, I repeat, nothing has been done to help us understand.

This, despite the obvious talents of directors like Paul Greengrass of "United 93" and Oliver Stone of "World Trade Center"; despite the literary investigations of reporters like Peter (Triple Cross) Lance and Lawrence (The Looming Tower) Wright; or the vivid recollections of Kristin (Wake-up Call) Breitweiser and the self-serving apologia (Without Precedent) of Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton; despite the National Geographic Channel's eviscerated version of Lance's book; despite Court TV's documentary embrace of On Native Soil, based on the discredited 9/11 Commission report; despite Spike TV's ode to metalworkers and millions of downloads of Loose Change; despite CBS's rerun of the same French documentary it aired years ago; and, yes, despite ABC's cretinous and much-discussed docudrama "The Path to 9/11" -- despite it all, all the bluster, all the recriminations, all the posturing, all the politics and all the media attention, attention still must be paid.

Attention -- first to the families, our touchstones who suffered more than any and who still seek deliverance from that suffering in their unending search for the truth of what happened. Attention next to the many questions about 9/11 that remain unanswered -- questions large and small, new and old; such as why the Pentagon held back so much information about air defense deficiencies from the 9/11 commission that Chairmen Kean and Hamilton came close to asking the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation; such as why the dozens of pre-attack warnings pouring into Washington were ignored; such as why the Able Danger intelligence program, which purportedly uncovered evidence of five active Al Qaeda cells and identified four of the eventual hijackers months before the attacks, was ignored and closed down; such as why Osama bin Laden was allowed to escape from Afghanistan when cornered in Tora Bora; such as why evidence of Pakistani intelligence involvement in the 9/11 plot has been ignored and covered up.


Digg!

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor writes the Media Is A Plural blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Let me be the first..
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Sep 14, 2006 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The authors apparent promotion of his own efforts as to 9-11 aside, nothing can be argued..We do need to keep looking until we truly know what happened..

I do find it curious though that he failed to mention Clinton's team misplacing pages of classified documents when testifying for the 9-11 commission, and they still cannot be located.. so lots being hidden here, my guess is more by Clinton than Bush as he had more time to mess up than Bush did.

As for the Pentagon not telling all re american air defense systems..are you kidding, who in the hell wants that info public.. lets tell EVERYONE where the holes are..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let me be the first.. Posted by: InfinityDog
Agreed
Posted by: brunowe on Sep 14, 2006 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I have disagreed with the "inside job" theorists who will no doubt fill this page, there clearly are many examples of dropping the ball the clearly need to be looked at.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paul Craig Roberts
Posted by: rwa on Sep 14, 2006 5:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The main problem with the 9/11 debate is that there has not really been a debate. Instead, we have had a report from a political commission run by a Bush administration insider, Philip Zelikow. In place of a real independent investigation, we have a collection of Washington players reassuring the public by defending the government’s story line.

Studies, such as those referred to by the Popular Mechanics editors, are in fact not forensic studies of evidence but what the editor-in- chief of “Fire Engineering” called “paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.”

The explanation that the three WTC buildings collapsed as a result of damage and fire is a mere assertion. The assertion is not backed up with scientific calculation to demonstrate that the energy from the airliners, fire, and gravity were sufficient to collapse the buildings. A number of independent authorities believe that there is a very large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the buildings. Until this issue is resolved, the official explanation is merely an assertion no matter who believes it.

The Canadian scientist Frank R. Greening has made the only independent scientific attempt of which I am aware to show that a gravity driven collapse of one of the buildings, WTC 1, was sustainable. His paper is published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006) and is available online. It is a reply to earlier calculations by Gordon Ross, who concluded otherwise, and is answered in the same issue by Ross, who shows that Greening’s work actually demonstrates the existence of an energy deficit.

It is instructive to read this exchange between competent authorities. Few readers will be able to follow the application of scientific principles and the calculations of the required and available energy. However, it will be clear that the issue is a scientific matter that is over the heads of members of a political commission, pundits, and bloggers, and that it is inappropriate for a pundit, who himself is incapable of following such a discussion, to call those participating in it “conspiracy nuts.”
informationclearinghouse.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Paul Craig Roberts Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Paul Craig Roberts Posted by: rwa
» RE: Paul Craig Roberts Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Paul Craig Roberts Posted by: rwa
» Collapse happens Posted by: fifthworld
» Support the official story Posted by: fifthworld
Top Secret! Evidence That Flight 77 Hit the Pentagon
Posted by: rwa on Sep 15, 2006 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Find it at:

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Pentagon_Parody.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow - an Actual published truther?
Posted by: colek on Sep 15, 2006 3:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Alternet has finally allowed a truther to have a voice? Miracles upon miracles!

Rory, just knowing the Jersey Girls have gotten a voice through your film brings tears to my eyes.

Real Americans refuse to be force-fed. Thanks for the alternative to the corporate tale.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

please read this.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Sep 16, 2006 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two Axioms of 9/11

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The greater crime
Posted by: dainin on Sep 16, 2006 7:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, you're right. There will be no "post 9/11 world" until Americans can honestly examine the events of 9/11.

But more importantly, we do know that both the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST WTC report are false. This fact represents a greater crime, and we know who committed that crime.

www.journalof911studies.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]