Last Thursday, 50 people were killed when a commercial airliner (Colgan Flight 3407) crashed in Clarence Center, a suburb of Buffalo, New York State. Through a savage twist of fate, one of the deceased was Beverly Eckert, who was widowed as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
9/11: Eckert sought the truth, not conspiracy theories
Eckert’s grief over the loss of her husband, Sean, led her (along with other bereaved relatives) to demand an investigation into what was effectively the US government’s most catastrophic intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor. In spite of the Bush administration’s stone-walling, Ms Eckert and her peers won a major victory for accountability and open government in the form of the 9/11 Commission (whose papers have recently been placed online).
Beverly Eckert was a passionate critic of US foreign policy post-9/11, and opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. She was also a critic of the Bush administration - which (for party-political reasons) tried to block her calls for an open inquiry into 9/11. While a host of charlatans and kooks have appropriated for themselves the title of the “9/11 truth movement”, Ms Eckert was a genuine truth-seeker, who wanted the record of the 11th September 2001 attacks made public. She believed that al-Qaeda had succeeded in killing her husband and nearly 3,000 other victims because of bureaucratic incompetence and institutional in-fighting between US government agencies who were (in theory) supposed to be co-operating to protect America and its citizens from terrorist attacks. It was her hope that the Commission’s investigation would identify the failures within officialdom and the intelligence services which contributed to 9/11, so that they could be rectified. She also wanted to see the architect of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, put on trial.
A bona fide “truth movement” would have had a similar agenda to Ms Eckert. If the likes of Dylan Avery, Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin were real “truthers” they would not be peddling lies and disinformation about controlled demolitions, non-existent government plots and stand-down orders which were not issued. Those who subscribe to LIHOP and MIHOP “theories” would not be disseminating myths and red-herrings (”dancing Jews”, “no plane” theories etc) which smeared first responders in New York and Washington, military and law enforcement personnel, air traffic controllers and even the passengers on the doomed flights. They’d be asking why the CIA and FBI failed to co-operate with each other and share information, and why the Bush administration ignored its predecessors warnings about the threat that al-Qaeda posed to the USA. They’d ask themselves whether the phenomenon of radical Islamist terrorism should be treated as a military problem to be defeated in a “war”, or as a law enforcement issue to be defeated by global political and police co-operation. They’d also ask how the balance between defending civil liberties and protecting the public from terrorist threats should be achieved.
They’d be asking all the questions that Beverly Eckert asked after 9/11. Their failure to do so explains why the “truth movement” is both marginalised and also a travesty of the values it claims to uphold.
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
32 responses
“A bona fide “truth movement” would have had a similar agenda to Ms Eckert. If the likes of Dylan Avery, Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin were real “truthers” they would not be peddling lies and disinformation about controlled demolitions, non-existent government plots and stand-down orders which were not issued. Those who subscribe to LIHOP and MIHOP “theories” would not be disseminating myths and red-herrings (”dancing Jews”, “no plane” theories etc) which smeared first responders in New York and Washington, military and law enforcement personnel, air traffic controllers and even the passengers on the doomed flights. They’d be asking why the CIA and FBI failed to co-operate with each other and share information, and why the Bush administration ignored its predecessors warnings about the threat that al-Qaeda posed to the USA. They’d ask themselves whether the phenomenon of radical Islamist terrorism should be treated as a military problem to be defeated in a “war”, or as a law enforcement issue to be defeated by global political and police co-operation. They’d also ask how the balance between defending civil liberties and protecting the public from terrorist threats should be achieved.”
Since you’ve brought the subject up, would you care to offer your views on any/all of these thorny issues? It would be useful to see where you stand on these matters.
Failure of FBI-CIA co-operation - this has been a perennial problem since the Agency was established by the National Security Act of 1947. It also reflects the organisational tension between an institution whose emphasis is on law enforcement (and who treated counter-terrorism as a secondary issue pre-9/11), and an intelligence service generally jealous about guarding its sources. Read any of the sources I have linked to in previous posts.
Should there be a ‘war on terror’? The language of ‘war’ is problematic, as it implies decisiveness and a specific threat to focus on. IMHO, the invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of the Taliban (al-Qaeda’s sponsor and protector) was necessary, and state-building - as hard as it is - is vital on strategic and humanitarian grounds. As for counter-terrorism in specific countries - from the UK to Saudi - it’s a police problem and an issue for community cohesion.
The balance between civil liberties and security? If I could answer this question, I wouldn’t be writing on this blog. IMHO, Guantanamo was a disaster because it tainted the judicial process of trying people like KSM. As for methods in my own country, I think the right balance has been struck. Terrorists have been treated like they truly are, as criminals, although if we had a 9/11 attack I don’t think we’d be quite so phlegmatic.
Happy?
Just realised I missed one of these questions. The Bush administration’s lack of focus on al-Qaeda can be attributed partly to the transition from the Clinton era (9/11 happened a mere 8 months after GWB’s inauguration), and also by a mindset amongst officials like Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld that could only see serious threats to national security coming from states. Hence the initial emphasis on ballistic missile defence and relations with China.
It is also worth reflecting on the fact that pre-9/11 the American body politic and media were as myopic about al-Qaeda. After all, the big news story in August 1998 was not the bombings of the Nairobi and Dar-e-Salaam embassies, but that oh-so-important question of whether Bill Clinton had been given a blow job by Monica Lewinsky. This was why the cruise missile strikes ordered on Afghan camps and (on erroneous grounds) the Al-Shifa plant in Sudan were treated by the press as a ‘Wag the Dog’ scenario, rather than a response to a non-state terrorist network (sheltered by the government of a failed state) which had just killed hundreds of people.
She believed that al-Qaeda had succeeded in killing her husband and nearly 3,000 other victims because of bureaucratic incompetence and institutional in-fighting between US government agencies who were (in theory) supposed to be co-operating to protect America and its citizens from terrorist attacks.
In fact, the government agencies in question were prohibited from co-operating by the Clinton administration. The directive establishing the “wall” between the CIA and the FBI was authored by Jamie Gorelick, then working for the Atty. General. Democrats were quick to appoint Gorelick to the commission investigating 9/11 where she would be shielded from testifying concerning her actions.
They’d be asking why the CIA and FBI failed to co-operate with each other and share information, and why the Bush administration ignored its predecessors warnings about the threat that al-Qaeda posed to the USA.
Let’s be clear, the “warnings” given the Bush administration were vague and general. And suggesting that Bush deliberately ignored information of a pending terrorist attack is little more than “trutherism” of a different kind. Also, it should be pointed out that the appointment of Gorelick and the behavior of Sandy Berger, who smuggled and destroyed documents concerning terrorism out of the National Archives before the 9/11 commission had a chance to review them, suggests that the Clinton administration was less than forthcoming and probably had something embarrassing to hide.
Very sad…
At least the truthers are not yet claiming the plane was downed by the ’shadow government’
Give them time, TCS, give them time …
Great article. It highlights just how much damage counter knoweldge can do. Eckert was asking the questions that needed to be asked and should have been answered, but unfortunatley it was all over-shadowed by conspiracy theorsists with inflated egos trying to get publicity for themselves. The conspiracy ‘truthers’ should be made accountable for their actions.
Oh and Vinny (comment 16/2) the authors of this site have stated their views on the subjects you raised many times. The authors have even posed questions to the ‘truthers’ many times about contradictions and inaccuracies in their claims and each time the ‘truthers’ have failed to answer the questions adequetly (click on ‘911 Truthers’ in the tag cloud for more info). And, as the website authors state it is up to the conspriacy theorist to provide real evidence for their outrageous and damaging claims…everyone else has to so why not them!
Edgarr, it’s up to every individual who makes claims/assertions to at least explain themselves, including those seeking to out-truth those individuals claiming to represent truth. It works both ways.
Please bear in mind that it’s not for individuals to determine what constitutes what you term ‘real evidence’. Courts decide what is and is not real evidence when making judgments. Individuals use opinion and the information to hand. It’s not good to confuse these two classes of information.
On a wider canvas, I’d like to see more analysis applied to ‘truther’ statements. Also, such statements need to be differentiated, because in this instance although we’re talking about a ’school of thought’ and an ideology, it would be wrong to describe all ‘truther’ statements as part of one endeavour. Clearly, that’s not so.
How many ‘truther’ actions are the work of propagandist anti-American groups? How many are the result of independent-minded free thinkers? How many are the work of bored misanthropes? How many result from genuine disbelief in official narratives, per se? Which ones are made by independent individuals with no axe to grind? Which are the product of vexatious minds? Which are stupid? Which are crazy? Which are plausible?
Doing anything other than differentiating the manifold claims on truth would be doing Eckert a disservice.
‘On a wider canvas, I’d like to see more analysis applied to ‘truther’ statements.’
Read my posts, Vinny. But I can give you some brief answers.
‘How many ‘truther’ actions are the work of propagandist anti-American groups?’
Those of Thierry Meysan’s ‘Voltaire Network’ and proclamations like this (http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/23/the-worlds-leading-islamists-send-911-troofer-letter-to-obama/) come in that category.
‘How many are the result of independent-minded free thinkers?’
None. Free thinkers tend not to be dogmatic fanatics, and the ‘truth movement’ is full of them.
‘How many are the work of bored misanthropes?’
See ‘Loose Change’.
‘How many result from genuine disbelief in official narratives, per se?’
Replace ‘genuine disbelief in official narratives’ with ‘paranoia’, and that describes Michael Ruppert and Kevin Barrett.
‘Which ones are made by independent individuals with no axe to grind?’
None.
‘Which are stupid? Which are crazy?’
All of them.
‘Which are plausible?’
None.
“‘How many are the result of independent-minded free thinkers?’
None.”
I doubt that. And I find it hard to accept that absolutely, without question no free thinking individuals have contributed to ongoing discussions in this area. None? Really? Well, you said it.
“‘How many result from genuine disbelief in official narratives, per se?’
Replace ‘genuine disbelief in official narratives’ with ‘paranoia’, and that describes Michael Ruppert and Kevin Barrett.”
How about not replacing the question with one you’d prefer to answer and answer the question asked?
“‘Which ones are made by independent individuals with no axe to grind?’
None.”
Really?
“‘Which are stupid? Which are crazy?’
All of them.”
What, all of them? Every possible combination of opinions? And the official version is the absolute whole truth, even if you accept glosses on the failures of inter-organisational working?
Again, I doubt that.
“‘Which are plausible?’
None.”
Bizarre.
It’s good to see you’ve at least investigated the categories you recognise as extant. If you start thinking about things you don’t like thinking about — perhaps even doubting your own doubt, Philosophy 101 style — you may discern other categories worth distinguishing. There may even be more than two narratives at work beyond the official truth and what you seem to regard as its ‘dogmatically fanatic’ other.
Like I said, Vinny, read my posts pointing out the logistical flaws and factual distortions of the ‘truth movement’. Then follow the threads of discussion, and see how the ‘truthers’ who do crop up get refuted comprehensively. And if you do think that any of the ‘truthers’ offer a more convincing account of 9/11 than that offered by the so-called ‘official’ (i.e. accepted and documented) account, then please let me know. You could perhaps start by answering these:
http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-questions-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/
http://counterknowledge.com/2009/01/more-on-15-questions-for-911-truthers-a-reply-to-stewart-bradley/
http://counterknowledge.com/2009/01/5-more-questions-for-911-truthers/
it just struck me, after reading this:
how long will it be before the death of this widow is incorporated into the 9.11 `truth’ conspiracy fable?
I give it two weeks.
Wayne, a complete nutcase who calls himself hANOVER fIST has already started the ball rolling:
http://911liarsexposed.blogspot.com/2009/02/mystery-of-flight-3407.html
shucks! I knew I was being too `liberal’ with my timeframe!
Vinny, I found your statement ‘it’s up to every individual who makes claims/assertions to at least explain themselves’ laughable in this context. Welch has eplained his position many times on articles on this site. As has been suggested to you several times in this posting you should read them. In addition to that it is the ‘truthers’ who keep making outrageous claims, but then consistently fail to explain themselves when asked reasonable questions about their claims. Are you asking them to do the same thing?
Also your statement ‘Please bear in mind that it’s not for individuals to determine what constitutes what you term ‘real evidence’. Courts decide what is and is not real evidence when making judgments…..’ We must be careful when definining what ‘real evidence’ is. You are obvioulsy taking a legal viewpoint of what ‘evidence’ is but there are many different definitions in different contexts (e.g. medical evidence, scientific evidence).
Each one has a different standard. From my point of view, and in this context, “evidence” is information that can be verifed or reproduced by an independent party. ‘Truthers’ do not even get close to doing this. Once again it is individual ‘truthers’ who are determing what they think the real ‘evidence’ is to fit their conspiracy theories…so are you questioning them like you are Welch?
Nicely put, Edgar. Thank you for your comments.
“Are you asking them to do the same thing?…so are you questioning them like you are Welch?”
Yes.
I am glad you are Vinny. I would be very interested to hear their response (if you get one).
Incidentally, another of the casualties in the plane crash was Alison des Forges, the veteran Human Rights Watch rapporteur for Rwanda. Another tragic loss.
Beverly Eckert believed 9/11 was an inside job!!
if she believed goevrnment official version, why would she tryied to sue government?
Er, no she didn’t, fool. She sought a full inquiry into the events leading to 9/11 (and got one). She was not a truther.
You are clearly confusing her with William Rodriguez, who did try (and fail) to bring a court action against the US government in 2004. But then if you do happen to belong to the ‘truth’ movement, I understand that it’s quite easy to confuse a Caucasian-American female in her fifties with a Latino-American male. It happens all the time.
The discrepancy between Rodriguez’s original recollections and his subsequent claims are dealt with here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132904&page=6
She sought a full inquiry into the events leading to 9/11 (and got one)
lol…joke of the day
It’s not as funny a joke as that shambles which calls itself the ‘truth movement’.
the incompetence and blind ignorance on this thread and topic is LAUGHABLE. 7 of the supposed 19 hijackers have turned up ALIVE. The FBI never bothered to “update” the list, 12,215 put option were put on American Airlines and 15 billion was made on insider trading. 7 billion was made alone by Larry Silverstein. the gullibility and pettiness here are obscene. I doubt anyone has bothered to research Peak Oil, nor will anyone here acknowledge the obvious links to the Bin Laden family and the Bush family (well before 2001 dating back to the Harken Energy-Arbushto Days of G.W.) and you IDIOTS are name calling on the Truth movement. PATHETIC and sad. Grow up and understand what Geopolitics is about.
Er, no she didn’t, fool. She sought a full inquiry into the events leading to 9/11 (and got one). She was not a truther.
She also wanted to SUE the U.S. Govt, the Saudi Government. She was offered money and would not comply. She met with Barack Obama as an advocate for those affected by 9/11 . If you paid attention, NONE OF THE QUESTIONS were answered by the 9/11 “Omission” Report, then Bush casually side stepped an inquiry under oath and not recorded when questioned about it. this is beyond partisan, nut. Its YOUR and everyone elses rights (conservative, liberatarian, or liberal) being stripped away by the coming Global Governance.
allot of you here need to do more research as well as myself, i”m not claiming to know the whole story. However, anyone one with any logical wit can if exposed to certain information, can point out that the government”s official 911 account is shoddy at best and leaves way more questions than answers. Furthermore, every time a politician is confronted with a difficult question, they simply refuse to answer!! Only 30% of all questions were published in the 911 Commission. I don’t have time to get into details, but Beverly Eckert is just another small piece of a larger puzzle. Some of you bash on “Truthers”…the name alone seems to discredit and alienate, but here them out!!
there motives are pure and they”re definetly fighting on Our Side if you know what i mean. Could we say the same for the the Federal government who have been caught lying over and over again?Why so quick to throw away all presented arguments of 911 activists?? Protest is a legal right !!
Id like to wrap this up by suggesting that we try something new.take any question a typical “Truther” would ask,, such as …Why would a fire at the top of a building cause it to pankake on itself at the speed of gravity ?? is this not a logical question? I haven’t heard any good explanations from the Skeptics or the Government. The Ball is in your hands. Find a logical explanation for all pertinent hapenings on 911 then il never read another conspiracie. Sometimes I think a few of you are actually on government payroll. Here only for couter intelligence. If you guys are reading this, i hope you can’t sleep at night. Know that the wicked will be sifted out eventually. Those who would sacrifice liberty and justice for security deserve neither ( T. J )
In critical thinking, you gotta disprove your opponents theorie before you can present him with yours. its also called cross examination. Two people taking turns yelling different arguments is just a fight. im leaving with a search topic for all you Skeptics out there…..online monitoring by intelligence agencies.
Joseph and Vinny are either brainwashed or deliberatly feeding us propaganda. What are you guys Stone Masons or something? think the Stupid lower class wouldn’t see through your manipulation?. At one point Vinny’s argument points out that all “truthers” are either propagamdist foreing groups or dogmatic fanatics or misanthropes or fools …..crazy….No axe to grind??……….At one point Joseph says ” replace genuine disbelief with paranoid” ..Hes referring to all of you out there who have genuine disbelief in the official account!!!!. I expect this kind of Cardstacking and bigotry from CNN but not here of all places. This is the war of information and you dicks are not on our side, get the fuck off the internet if you wanna take the governments side. The time for bullshit retoric over.
Why should Truthers be questioned??? . you can’t silence an argument by presenting a new one Sheesh.
Role play
Truther: ” How can a Sky Scraper made to withstand fire and aircraft collisions collapse on itself at the speed of gravity due to fires on the upper levels? ”
Skeptic: ” Thats bullshit! Hey Answer me this! if it was a conspiracie like you think, wouldn’t there be protest and upheavel?
notice the second guy dosn’t give possible explanation for the bizarre nature of the incident in question. In defense, he yells his yells a question of his own.
At one point the Questioners became the questioned and it should never have been so because the People are not the ones on trial here,, its the people who influence the world behind closed doors. They are the ones who are suspected of great crimes, not Us.
Joseph,
“‘How many are the result of independent-minded free thinkers?’
None. Free thinkers tend not to be dogmatic fanatics, and the ‘truth movement’ is full of them.”
That reminds me of Bush when he said, “Either you are with us or the terrorists.” Very few things in life are black and white and anything relating to 911 is not. Open your mind to all the evidence.
Thank you.
Mark
Markus,
“She sought a full inquiry into the events leading to 9/11 (and got one)”
Is that why building 7 is not mentioned in the full report?
Johnny Tightlips,
“This is the war of information and you dicks are not on our side, get the fuck off the internet if you wanna take the governments side. The time for bullshit retoric over.”
Right on Bro!