By John Spritzler. Axis of Logic Editorial Commentary
Editor's Comment: We received the following letter from our friend John Spritzler in response to William Martin's essay, On the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, which we featured on Axis of Logic on January 2, 2012. There are two levels in this challenge which we will briefly consider in this editorial commentary. The first is the position taken by Martin and the content of his essay; the second is the question about whether Martin should have been given voice for his position on a respected international website like Axis of Logic.
As to the first challenge, we happen to agree with John Sprizler's critique in just about every detail. For example, Spritzler writes:
"I am afraid that William Martin's views stem not from objective science or logic but rather from his extremely subjective faith-based premise: the presumed 'mind-boggling, improbability of an American President being a mass murderer of thousands of Americans on American soil'."
On this point, we think William Martin's opinion is not only an "extremely subjective faith-based" assumption; it is also patently absurd. It flies in the face of a murderous history of US presidents history dating back to the first 'father of the country', George Washington, who committed genocide on the Iroquois Nation and continuing through all the infamous US wars and other military actions since then. We have no doubt that Washington and its shadow government have always been more than capable either of allowing the 9/11/01 attacks to proceed, or of direct involvement in planning and executing them. Spritzler's ensuing argument also comports with positions we have consistently taken regarding since the 9/11/01 attacks.
The second issue Spritzler raises is a little more sticky. Regarding the wisdom of our publication of William Martin's essay, Spritzler asserts:
"This is simply a fairy tale, and the conclusions that stem from it do not belong on a website that prides itself for being an Axis of Logic."
He concludes:
"Lastly, I would urge Axis of Logic to dump the use of the phrase 'conspiracy theory' as a condescending way of dismissing an opinion."
To these statements we reply that: our publication of William Martin's article is completely logical; and, we do not apply the term "conspiracy theory" to those who disagree with the government's report. We simply tell our readers how some people apply the term.
Martin's article caused something of a firestorm in our Readers Comment section. Some of these reactions were rational, some were highly emotional and others were both. Co-editor, Paul Richard Harris replied to some of these comments and in one he stated:
"It was me who posted this piece, and I did so because I simply don't agree that this debate is finished and I hoped it would provoke some reasoned discussion."
We think the 9/11/01 combined attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was the most important event of our time, perhaps the most important in human history because of its use as a pretext for the US "war on terror," which is clearly a war on the world. We have learned from history that major events such as this have always followed the pattern of becoming corrupted by revisionist historians and lost to the memories of future generations. The murder of John F. Kennedy and some of the events mentioned in Spritzler's reply serve as examples.
As publishers, it is our responsibility to keep the memory and factual analysis of the 9/11/01 attacks alive and in the forefront of political debate. One way of doing this is to publish opinions with which many of our readers, and we ourselves, may radically disagree. To do otherwise would leave us singing 'the gospel of the left to the choir of the left' - nobody having their thoughts challenged, minds drifting, everyone nodding assent as the revolution falls asleep and into the abyss.
That's not what Axis of Logic is about. If we publish an article now and again that wakes up the consciousness to the facts of the inside job that the Washington killers perpetrated on the people of the United States - indeed the people of the world - yeah, we'll take full responsibility for that!
Perhaps this message will help you understand what it means to be publishers of a significant international website on the left and why we publish or republish what we do. Or perhaps not. Either way, thanks for writing to us and for your interest in Axis of Logic
- Axis of Logic Editors
From John Spritzler:
Dear Axis of Logic,
In your featured article, "On the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories," William Martin accuses the 9/11 Truthers of "totally ignoring" things. But who, really, is ignoring things? How come William Martin ignores the fact that three, not two, buildings in the WTC collapsed in what looked like (in the opinion of experts) a controlled demolition, but only two buildings were struck by planes? William Martin provides a link to a Scientific American article defending the official story's assertion that the WTC twin towers collapse is entirely explainable by the planes striking them, without needing any recourse to a "conspiracy theory" about controlled demolition being a necessary factor. Amazingly, this article totally ignores the fact that WTC Building #7 also collapsed like the other two twin towers but was not hit by a plane; the article does not even mention the third building. Yet Martin accuses 9/11 skeptics of ignoring the facts!
Also, why does William Martin ignore the fact that the leading 9/11 Truthers readily acknowledge that two planes hit two buildings. Far from "deny[ing] that two jumbo jets loaded with jet fuel rammed into both buildings" the 9/11 Truthers delve into the question, in great detail, of what such an impact could, and could not, do to a building, given the laws of physics and the design of the building. For example, the 9/11 Truthers have shown that the government's "pancaking" theory to explain how the planes alone caused the buildings to collapse is not consistent with the laws of physics and the near free-fall speed of the collapses--something that is recorded in the many videos that people made during the attack. So who, exactly, is ignoring what many people saw?
Regarding the plausibility of our government carrying out a 9/11 false flag operation to serve as a pretext for an act of war, I suggest William Martin read about Operation Northwoods, which ABC News describes this way:
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
I am afraid that William Martin's views stem not from objective science or logic but rather from his extremely subjective faith-based premise: the presumed "mind-boggling, improbability of an American President being a mass murderer of thousands of Americans on American soil." Conclusions that derive from such a faith-based premise are not scientific conclusions; they are articles of faith.
The only reason that William Martin could possibly have for doubting that an American president would mass murder thousands of Americans, when it is undisputed that American presidents have mass murdered millions of non-Americans from Vietnam to Iraq, is that Martin must believe that national conflict rather than class conflict is the fundamental conflict driving history, and that national leaders like president Bush really do care about the welfare of ordinary Americans because they are, after all, both Americans. This is simply a fairy tale, and the conclusions that stem from it do not belong on a website that prides itself for being an Axis of Logic.
The readers of Axis of Logic should recall the words of the fictional character who is famous for being logical, Sherlock Holmes, who said, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The official 9/11 story is, on many counts, impossible because it conflicts with the laws of physics, as literally thousands of architects, engineers, pilots and other experts have been saying for years. For some links go to New Democracy World.
Lastly, I would urge Axis of Logic to dump the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" as a condescending way of dismissing an opinion. The official 9/11 story is, of course, just as much a conspiracy theory as any 9/11 Truther's theory. The question is not whether some people conspired to orchestrate the 9/11 attack; the question is who did it and why.
- John Spritzler
Print This 
Print This 