Especially left and liberal professionals and service intellectuals but also right-wing members of the intelligentsia vehemently attack and ridicule “conspiracy theories” such as the present 911 Truth movement.
It’s as though power did not covertly orchestrate its predation of us? Is that not the modus operandi of power?
Is it so difficult to believe that the complex and highly successful military attack on US soil that was 911 (levelling three gigantic sky scrapers, blasting a hole into the Pentagon, and destroying four commercial jets and their passengers) was not orchestrated by a religious zealot from a cave in Afghanistan and executed by failed Cessna pilot trainees with box cutters? Or that those who measurably benefited in the trillions had nothing to do with it?
What the hell? Not even (admittedly rare) authoritative mainstream reports seem to matter .
What ever happened to “war is a racket” and “follow the money”?
In rigorous compliance with the true meanings of “academic freedom”  and “freedom of the press” virtually no academics or mainstream journalists have made it their research to find truth or to radically (at the root) question the establishment version.
Indeed, all the major and considered-radical academic pundits such as Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, have actively avoided the possibility that the 911 attacks could have been known or aided from within the finance-corporate-military complex.
What keeps them from crossing that line? What makes them demean attempts to cross that line? 
Similarly, even outspoken dissident parliamentary politicians such as George Galloway have ridiculed the concerns of 911 truthers (at his last public talk in Ottawa).
Is such self and projected censorship by star intellectuals only the result of the fear of being mobbed by ridicule? Is asking these questions in public fora so dangerous?
When barred and suppressed Afghan Member of Parliament Malalai Joya was asked about 911 by a truther in Ottawa last year she replied that those who sought answers in this matter should address their questions to the occupiers of the White House. To this writer’s knowledge, this is the furthest that any politician has gone in this direction, coming from “the bravest woman in Afghanistan” no less.
But what shocked the present writer more is the derision to which was subjected the truther at the Malalai Joya Ottawa event, at the hands of an “activist” and “progressive” crowd.
The intelligentsia appears to be addicted to the illusion that it has a monopoly on valid analysis and understanding. In order to preserve this illusion and to protect its standing in providing interpretations of the World, the intelligentsia must limit the scope of all investigations to domains that fall within its self-established interpretational paradigms (right-left, power politics, geopolitical chess board, corporate motives, etc.) and self-established research protocols.
Those paradigms and protocols, in turn, and the rigorously followed discipline of not supposing the worst in one’s research stance, were established in academia at the time when “academic freedom” was being defined by the cornerstone nineteenth century US battles for professional independence in academia. The academics and society lost that battle :
“[T]he economists were the first professional analysts to be “broken in,” in a battle that defined the limits of academic freedom in universities. The academic system would from that point on impose a strict operational separation between inquiry and theorizing as acceptable and social reform as unacceptable.
Any academic wishing to preserve her position understood what this meant. As a side product, academics became virtuosos at nurturing a self-image of importance despite this fatal limitation on their societal relevance, with verbiage such as: The truth is our most powerful weapon, the pen is mightier than the sword, a good idea can change the world, reason will take us out of darkness, etc.”
Academics and “radical professors” train the intelligentsia…
And power owns the media.
TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH
But much more importantly power owns us, owns our jobs, owns students at school and owns the homeless on the street, the First Peoples on the reserves and the prisoners in the jails. As long as we are owned, information about abuse of power is irrelevant for social change.
This is the sociological fact that the 911 Truth movement has failed to recognize . Truth will not set us free. Truth and information do not lead to action. It’s not a question of how many folks know the truth.
It’s only a question of what the truth means in real terms to however few individuals and will these individuals rebel, actually rebel and individually take back power over their lives.
Contrary to the mantra of our left academic idols, truth and research are not threatening to power in a culture of subservience and obedience. In such a culture, radical-in-thought academics only stabilize the system by neutralizing the more action-minded youth. 
In such a culture, the only truth that is threatening to power is one that it perceives as an attack on its self-image . And, in such a culture, psychological self-image arising from power’s connection to the broader society is the only force that can move power to constrain itself . In this measure, in the present culture, 911 Truth could have an impact. In this way, some of the low-level actual perpetrators and facilitators of 911 could eventually be sacrificed in show trials or in mainstream smear campaigns.
In conclusion, the intelligentsia works at protecting itself (and by extension the system) and therefore will be a visceral opponent of 911 Truth until it can integrate 911 Truth and participate in neutralizing 911 Truth in order for power to save face. Or, some citizens might actually rebel? The extent and projection/potential of such pockets of rebellion is the only force capable of leveraging real concessions from power .
 “Some big lies of science” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.
 “Questioning Foundations: An Interview with Denis Rancourt” by Michael Barker, 2010, Dissident Voice.
 “911 Truth” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.
 “Against Chomsky” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2008.
 “Psycho-biological basis for image leverage and the case of Israel” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.
 “On the racism and pathology of left progressive First-World activism” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.
 “Roundabout as conflict-avoidance versus Malcolm X’s psychology of liberation” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.
 “Murder and genocide are natural, therefore rebel!” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010.
corbettreport.com: 9/11 Truth is Still the Issue
TheRealNews: 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered
Denis G. Rancourt was a tenured and full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada. He practiced several areas of science which were funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals. He developed popular activism courses and was an outspoken critic of the university administration and a defender of student and Palestinian rights. He was fired for his dissidence in 2009 by a president who is a staunch supporter of Israeli policy. [See rancourt.academicfreedom.ca]
Despite Israel’s refusal to extend its settlement freeze, the Palestinian Authority (PA) will still resume the second round of direct talks with Tel Aviv. The upcoming meeting will be held at Egypt’s Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on Tuesday.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and acting PA Chief Mahmoud Abbas held the first round of negotiations in Washington on September 2.
Following the first meeting, Abbas warned that he would leave the negotiations should Israel resume its illegal settlement activities.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell will also travel to Egypt to attend the meeting. The four officials will then move to al-Quds (Jerusalem) for a second day of talks on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama will meet with Abbas and Netanyahu in New York next week during the UN General Assembly meeting.
The second round of Israeli-PA talks comes after Israel on Monday approved the construction of more than 13,000 new settler units in the occupied West Bank.
In November, the Israeli premier announced a 10-month freeze on illegal settlement expansion projects in the occupied West Bank. But Tel Aviv has repeatedly violated the freeze, which expires on September 26, by continuing to construct more settlement units.
When 91 year old Ibrahim Abu Sayed left his home near Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza, yesterday morning, in order to check on his land and his animals which graze next to the remains of his former home, he took with him his 17-year-old grandson Hossam and the young boy’s friend and neighbour, 16-year-old Ismail Abu Oda. His son, Hossam’s father, didn’t want to come because it was the final day of Eid ul-Fitr, the Muslim festival that follows the holy month of Ramadan.
Ibrahim Abu Sayed, the 91 year old killed, his face mutilated by shrapnel
Despite his age, Ibrahim Abu Sayed was still mobile enough to regularly check his 3 dunums of land, as he had done for decades. The last decade had been the hardest as his house was destroyed in 2000 by Israeli bulldozers and his rebuilt house destroyed in the 3-week Israeli war on Gaza over the New Year of 2009.
But early Saturday evening would be the last time Ibrahim, Hossam and Ismail would work their land. Seven hundred metres away from their land – north of Sharab Street – at the border with Israel, tanks made an incursion into Gaza. The old man, his grandson and the friend did not stand a chance when the tanks fired shells directly at them.
ISM activists met the family members at the hospital. The wife of Ibrahim was devastated, screaming in horror at the fate that had befallen her family.
“I was there half an hour before it happened”, said Mohammed Abu Oda, another relative. “I saw them by their sheep. I heard the shells from the Israeli tanks, the shells we learned soon afterwards had killed our relatives.”
The dead body of 17 year old Hossam Abu Sayed
They were killed instantly, and were dead on arrival at Beit Hanoun hospital, according to the doctor who examined them. Ibrahim suffered severe shrapnel injuries to his face, chest and stomach and his grandson Hossam had the back of his head blown away. ISM activists verified this immediately as they saw and photographed the mutilated bodies in the morgue. Ismail, Hossam’s friend, had arrived at the hospital 30 minutes after the others but had been buried before ISM arrived at the hospital; according to doctors much of his head was shot away.
The boys had been close friends, studying in the 9th and 10th grade respectively, and had expected to return to school after the end of Eid, the following day. But yesterday they still were on holidays, so they went to help Ibrahim, as they often would. Despite the struggle they endured after their house was destroyed and their land bulldozed, the family, who are Bedouins, had no other job except farming. Although they were obliged to farm their land close to the border, it was still far enough away to be outside the Israeli imposed “buffer zone”.
“Israel claims that there’s a 300 meter buffer zone, but they were 700 meters away from the border”, said one of Ismail’s uncles, Majdy Abu Oda.
“The people there are farmers who’ve been living there for years. We, the people here, were never dangerous for the Israelis. They have photos of the people who live and work here, the area is full of observation cameras. So they knew them.”
Because of this the family considered themselves to be relatively safe, even though there were tanks at the border. It turned out they were mistaken to feel even slightly secure. While all the inhabitants of Gaza are victims of Israel’s ‘collective punishment’, a crime against humanity according to article 33 of the Geneva Convention (of which Israel is a signatory), they are the latest to be subjected to its worst manifestation and murdered with complete impunity.
If a 91 year old man, his grandson and young boy were killed while tending to their livestock on their own farm, 700 metres from a border, somewhere else in the world, there would likely be outcry. Where is the international outrage? Where is the clamour for justice? If equal standards were applied the media uproar should at least be comparable to the condemnation over the Israeli settlers shot two week ago – people who were living illegally on stolen land according to international law. Israeli armed forces have continued to wage a war against civilians in Gaza, long after the Israeli air and ground assault in the winter of 2008/2009 ended, yet condemnation of this state terrorism and its innocent civilian victims is rarely heard.
The family clearly posed no threat; they were known as long term residents of the area. But Israeli soldiers knew they could kill these three men with impunity, having previously almost entirely destroyed their livelihood.
Saber Zaneen, General Coordinator of the Beit Hanoun solidarity group, ‘Local Initiative’, released a statement following the killings, calling for justice.
“Today the occupation committed a new crime which will be added to its black list. Three martyrs now rest in heaven after the shelling and again we call on the international community and civil society to pressure the occupation forces to stop such crimes against Palestinian civilians and to start working on giving some protection to the local people in the Gaza strip,” he said.
They have also announced that tomorrow (Tuesday) morning at 10AM there will be a demonstration against the killings involving a march towards the fence, next to the Erez border. Four International Solidarity Movement activists will be there to accompany the protestors and document the likely violent repression which it may be subjected to – at the last non-violent demonstration in the area, live ammunition was used by Israeli border soldiers.
sanjeevsemail | September 04, 2010
Goldstone Facts has produced clips of Ken Loach, Arundhati Roy and Mairead Maguire reading from the Goldstone Report which was defamed by supporters of Israel’s 2008-09 war on Gaza and mostly forgotten by everyone else. Meanwhile the people of Gaza, and Gaza’s children in particular (almost half of Gaza’s population is under the age of 15), continue to suffer under Israel’s continued illegal siege. (Catch Roy and Maguire after the jump).
Village residents have been living at the site before Israel was established
Bulldozers entered the Al-Araqib village to raze what residents had rebuilt after the village was destroyed less than a month earlier. Israeli police reportedly detained a number of peace activists present at the scene to stop the latest demolitions.
A spokesman for Israel’s National Police did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment on the demolitions and arrests.
On 17 August, Israeli authorities demolished the village for the fourth time after it was razed two-weeks before. Residents rebuilt dwellings shortly after the initial demolitions, undertaken to make way for a Jewish National Fund park.
The efforts to rebuild were prompted by decision by the Higher Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel after the village was first torn down. Locals said following the last demolitions that they intended to rebuild their homes.
The last demolitions were carried out during Ramadan, which Palestinian-Israeli Knesset member Taleb As-Sana described at the time as inhumane. He added that the razing of Bedouin homes was “a declaration of war” against the Negev inhabitants and would only create violence.
Israel deems Bedouin village ‘illegal’
On 27 July, all 40 homes in the Al-Araqib village were destroyed and 300 residents, all Israeli citizens, were evicted during the raid after an Israeli court deemed the village illegally built on state land. The Bedouin residents say they have proof of land ownership, and have been in court for several years.
At least 200 children were left homeless as a result, as police removed residents property into prepared containers, and bulldozers razed buildings and sheepfolds, local activists said in a statement. Fruit orchards and olive grove trees were destroyed in the process.
Israeli activists who were present at the initial demolition described the move as an “act of war, such as is undertaken against an enemy.”