Reply to this topicStart new topic
Open Letter To Bill Moyers, Objections raised by 9/11 Truth Community

post Mar 23 2011, 01:02 PM
Post #1

Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633

I have been an admirer of Bill Moyers, and continue to see him as one of the good guys in the battle against the influence of the corporate media and the complete conversion of the mainstream outlets into propaganda factories. In a speech early this year, Mr. Moyers tarred with a very broad brush the entirity of the 9/11 Truth movement. Volumes of careful and valid research are disregarded and unsupported assertions place everyone with alternative views of 9/11 into the same basket labled "Liars". The signatories to this letter request an apology. In the unlikely event that Mr. Moyers responds, it will be posted here also.

March 19, 2011 7:22

An Open Letter To Bill Moyers

Dear Mr. Moyers:

We note the wide publication of a speech you gave on January 27, 2011 titled “Is This a Private Fight or Can Anyone Get In It?” In it you described “truthers” (your designation) – people seeking the truth about the attack of 9/11 – as guilty of disinformation, of sophistry and of cherry-picking anomalies in order to perpetrate what you claim to be a “Big Lie.” You also stated that the central claim of “truthers”, that the Government has lied about the attacks, has not taken hold in the public mind.

Regarding public opinion, that a sizable proportion of people throughout the world believe there was federal involvement of some form in the attack has been mainstream news for years, and there is now a Wikipedia page devoted to global opinion polls about 9/11. As well, you know that the Commission was established only after more than a year of entreating by families of victims, that it was severely limited in both time and funding, that it was under the absolute control of a director with ties to the Administration, and that abundant information inconsistent with an official story was excluded.

What has become known as the “9/11Truth Movement” includes a great diversity of people, many with impeccable credentials and reputations, who have in common an understanding that the official governmental story of 9/11 is filled with obvious fabrications and who feel impelled to pursue the truth. The collective that you have painted with the “liar” brush includes us, many of our esteemed colleagues and a multitude of fine and prominent people the world over. We the undersigned have come together to state unequivocally that we have not cherry picked information or lied. We believe that by any reasonable standard we are owed a public apology.

Dr. Robert M. Bowman
Director of Advanced Space Programs Development
under Presidents Ford and Carter

John B. Cobb, Jr.
Professor Emeritus
Claremont School of Theology

Dwain Deets
Former Director for Research Engineering
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center

Richard Gage, AIA Architect
Founder, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

David Ray Griffin
Emeritus Professor of Theology
Claremont School of Theology

Niels Harrit
Associate Professor Emeritus
Dept. Chemistry, University of Copenhagen

Barbara Honegger
Former White House Policy Analyst
Senior Military Affairs Journalist

Dr. Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics (retired)
Brigham Young University

Reverend Rich Lang
Trinity United Methodist Church
6512 23rd Ave. NW
Seattle, WA 98117

Shelton F. Lankford
Lt. Col., U.S. Marine Corps (ret.)
Distinguished Flying Cross

Graeme MacQueen, Ph.D.
Emeritus Associate Professor
Dept. of Religious Studies
McMaster Univeristy
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Lynn Margulis
Distinguished University Professor
Department of Geosciences
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

William B. Willers
Emeritus Professor of Biology
University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh

Dr. John D. Wyndham
Former Research Fellow in Radio Astronomy
California Institute of Technology

Barrie Zwicker
Author, “Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11”
Journalist, formerly with Detroit News, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Mar 23 2011, 02:49 PM
Post #2

Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814

Painting with a broad brush is never a good approach and Moyers who is otherwise a critical thinker seems to have allowed his otherwise clear thinking\ to be poisoned about this matter by some unconventional and bizarre (in some cases) theories about 9/11 lumped into the heading "truthers".

There is no doubt that the official account (NIST, 911 Commission, FEMA Report) are incomplete, make numerous key factual errors, failed to pursue all areas of interest, and "the government" has withheld or destroyed evidence which is required to determine what actually happened. The "government" therefore was a participant in conspiracy to cover up, and conceal the truth. Nothing new here. They lie, have lied and will continue to lie to the people when it is convenient or expedient.

We don't know who the official story is covering or shielding from justice, why the officials are covering for them, how the entire media has in the USA has buried this story. The most conservative approach in the truth movement is to demand a new investigation to get at what actually happened, because the official account is simply lacking and therefore not credible.

Many who identify as "truthers" recognize that they were lied to and have perhaps jumped the gun in concluding that it was a government conspiracy... and the phrases MIHOP and LIHOP are indeed part of the "truther" lexicon. The conspiracy may turn out to involve officials in government, the military, intel, ex intel from this country or others, bankers, and others. It may look like any or all of the preceding were involved. but we don't have a slam dunk, smoking gun case for anything but a cover up. Why the cover up?

Many individuals are clearly intimidated, though they don't or will not say so. If it wasn't the claimed AQ and it was "us" (our "trusted officials) so to speak... those conspirators showed they would commit cold blooded mass murder without a worry, intimidate and cover it up and they likely would silence anyone who might question their authority... Termination with extreme prejudice. In this case the cover up is not worse than the crime.

It takes enormous courage when you have a position of respect and influence in this society to put yourself in the position where you are calling the government or the MIC etc. liars and murderers of our own citizens. This is not a popular idea. Moyers seemed to have stepped in deep doo. Or he may have been pushed into it. He joins several other progressive media figures who refuse to look at the case for a new investigation.

I certainly think something's fishy here and I don't know that this letter will motivate or shame Moyers into changing his public position. Look what "they" did to Dan Rather. Perhaps someone should have had an off the record private talk with him to see what's up? Is Moyers the problem or a symptom of a larger problem?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Mar 24 2011, 03:06 PM
Post #3

Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331

Good post Maturin. I too have liked Moyers over the years, but here he has shown himself to be just another government apologist.

Certainly there are psychological factors at work, and it might be that he is simply in denial and cannot overcome his phobia.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Mar 24 2011, 03:45 PM
Post #4

Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315

a noble effort shelton. from what i gather moyers is/was a member of the cfr, and as such....

well,at first i wasn't going to respond for that reason, but your effort should not go unrecognized.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Mar 24 2011, 09:48 PM
Post #5

Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710

LIKED THE LETTER. please let us know if it elicits a response.

over the years, i have found moyers to be a very adroit skater on the ice of agitprop.

his years with lbj were masterworks of dissembling in my recollection.

i also found his pbs broadcasts to be well-tailored so as to preserve his renovated reputation and preserve his cpb funding[which he eventually lost].

SIDEBAR: if there was ever an excuse for removing the usg's funding of television broadcasting, it has been how all the sycophants for funds tailored their broadcasting so as to not antagonize the very fascist stewards of the cpb[robert coonrod was the most notorious in my view].

also, i think that there is no prohibition for moyers to produce video journalism for broadcasting on the internet, these days.

i say some of this based on my way too long involvement with the pacifica foundation and the censorship it seemed to welcome when it went to the cpb for some crumbs of unnecessary funding. it was as if pacifica wanted an excuse to not cover stories, to not tell the truth.

some of you know of brasscheck. its founder, ken mccarthy, i first encountered during the battles to save pacifica from the cpb. then we intersected again immediately in the aftermath of the events of 11/09/01.

there is nothing to prevent moyers from joining the truth telling that is the daily menu at brasscheck.

but somehow, i think that moyers has never fully relinquished the ethos that governed his service to lbj.

but, i could be seeing moyers too unfavorably.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Mar 25 2011, 01:09 AM
Post #6

Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633

Two points: Thanks for the comments. The impetus for the letter is Prof. Willers. Feel free to post the letter wherever you think it appropriate.

Mr. Moyers returned from an initial retirement to rail against some of the egregious transgressions of the administration and the media during the Bush II administration. He spoke with force and considerable moral authority, and frankly, I was grateful for his voice at that time.

We have become accustomed to the current media environment and we no longer expect truth out of our "journalists" on certain subjects. The higher in the food chain they are the less we expect. We don't expect Olbermann or Maddow to quote from Architects and Engineers, or to hear demands for a new investigation from any of them. We get all gushy about Judge Napolitano or Geraldo making vague noises about walking back some of their derision for 9/11 truth. It is just accepted that at the top of the media pyramid, where with only 5 corporations running the whole show, the room to maneuver is very scarce, and those who are able to attain that lofty height are smart enough to know what causes and controversial charges are and are not acceptable to their overlords. We get our feelings hurt if they seem to go out of their way and issue gratuitious insults to the movement we have invested heavily in, but we are surely not surprised. On the contrary, if they make ambiguous remarks when discussing 9/11 or JFK, we are grateful they didn't exhibit the customary scorn. I reacted in this forum to some throw-away remarks of Ms. Maddow who unfavorably characterized a Republican in a primary race who made some skeptical assertions about 9/11, having heard Rachel express similar sentiments in person. Is she a hypocrite? Sure, I guess so. I see her beating up the neocons and teabaggers who are trying to sweep away everything making a middle class life possible in the USA, and I am glad she is there, as opposed to, say Joe Scarborough. I feel the same about Mr. Moyer. Most celebrities who do not care to be identified as truthers elect to say nothing at all. Plausible deniability is the last refuge of many, not just the politician.

*I think we reserve our harshest judgments not for the Faux News spokesmodels, but for those who position themselves as fearless crusaders for truth and fall short, for whatever reason. It's hard not to.

Wouldn't it be great to live in a country with freedom of speech for everyone? Is freedom really just another word for nothing left to lose?

I still want an apology.

*Edited to add one line.

This post has been edited by maturin42: Mar 25 2011, 01:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 14 2013, 11:25 AM
Post #7

Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 5-July 13
Member No.: 7,439

QUOTE (maturin42 @ Mar 25 2011, 12:09 AM) *
Most celebrities who do not care to be identified as truthers elect to say nothing at all.

You have to admit, there are imaginative factions of the 9/11 truth movement that are all too willing to dive into any and every rabbit hole
with their theories. That is what people like Moyers and Maddow use for intellectual cover.

One of my pet peeves in all this is the Orwellian perversion of language by turning the word "truth" into the dismissive ad hominem - "truther" - a pejorative which has had the affect of making journalists unwilling to risk losing all credibility by getting painted with the
same wide conspiracy brush. I think that's worked really well.

QUOTE (maturin42 @ Mar 25 2011, 12:09 AM) *
I think we reserve our harshest judgments not for the Faux News spokesmodels, but for those who position themselves as fearless crusaders for truth and fall short, for whatever reason. It's hard not to.

Moyers and Maddow seem easier to explain. Maddow works for GE, the largest defense contractor on the planet and PBS is now taking Koch money. But the only time I've ever seen Noam Chomsky act like an angry old man is when he's disparaging the 9-11 truth movement. Howard Zinn writes a blurb for one of David Ray Griffen's books saying it's important that everyone should read Griffen's book but when subsequently confronted in public forums by questions about 9/11, he recommends we move on and turn the page.

It baffles me. The only explanation I can get my head around is that pragmatically, Zinn and Chomsky know that there is never going to
be another investigation because the elite simply refuse to investigate themselves in any meaningful way - end of story. For example, the second time Obama broke my heart is when his administration decided to look the other way on the war crimes of the Bush cabinet.
That should not have surprised and infuriated me but it did.

I don't pretend to speak for Zinn or Chomsky but I imagine they would counsel that there are more practical low hanging fruit we can pick
in repairing our Bill of Rights and rolling back the military-intelligence-surveillance empire apparatus that is bankrupting us.

Thanks for sharing your letter.

This post has been edited by N2264J: Oct 14 2013, 11:29 AM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th October 2020 - 03:24 AM