"'The police conception of history' was, in the nineteenth century, a reactionary and ridiculous explanation, at a time when so many powerful social movements agitated the masses. Today's pseudo-opponents are well aware of this, thanks to hearsay or some books, and believe that this conclusion remains true for eternity; they never want to see the real praxis of their time; because it is too sad for their cold hopes. The State isn't ignorant of this, and plays on it."

Guy Debord, Commentairies on the Society of the Spectacle (1988), my translation from the French.

 What are you trying to say, exactly?

Comment favorable to 9/11 conspiracy movement deleted. Please don't bother posting such comments here. We are pretty hostile to the 9/11 truth movement and will automatically delete comments which further that nonsense and sloppy thinking.

- Admin

I am truly shocked. I posted a well argued and very civil critique, and it was deleted. No need to counter the icky points I raised, then, I suppose? You can call it "nonsense" and "sloppy thinking" all day long, but you can't seem to be able to reply to the content of my message, to say nothing of the political implications of this action, which I discussed in the post which has now been deleted. What exactly is so threatening about what I posted that you can't even allow it to be read by your site's visitors? Like I wrote, this kind of censorship is really divisive and pushes out a lot of potential allies, or isn't movement building what you're going for?

Try annoying.  Administration of this site has dealt with this crap since it started and probably around 2002 it got lame..not sure when it was decided to completely shut down 9/11 nutjobs, but I do like to not read their bullshit.  The conclusions one draws from 9/11, be it done as it was said or be it an "inside job", don't change.  We are anarchist radicals and we want to see the social order destroyed.  Belief in conspiracy is not only unnecessary, but a hinderance on communicating our intentions because our reasons for revolt has to do with even the very best capitalism can create and not simply a response to the worst that capitalism does.

As you might have read in my post until it was deleted, my concerns are that you don't stand much of a chance of spreading your point of view, which I actually largely agree with, when you are so actively alienating so many people who might, with some more discussion and education, come around to seeing things the way you do.  You could be using this framework to accomplish that (I happen to think it's not only valuable in this way but inherently true, also), but instead, you're spitting in the faces of a lot of people who might otherwise want to hear you out.

Then again, you are welcome to stay as irrelevant as you please.

Ok. Perhaps we were a bit hasty with the delete key on your post. Sorry about that.

As someone who contributes both money and articles to this website, I must say -- despite the risk that this comment may be deleted and/or who knows what else -- that I find the following alarming and I feel the need to distance myself from it publicly.

Comment favorable to 9/11 conspiracy movement deleted. Please don't bother posting such comments here. We are pretty hostile to the 9/11 truth movement and will automatically delete comments which further that nonsense and sloppy thinking.

What alarms me here is the facile summation and equally facile dissmissal of an entire "movement" that is in fact not a monolithic movement but a diverse set of individuals and groups with very diverse opinions on a variety of subjects. It is quite true that some/most of 911 theorizing is "nonsense and sloppy thinking," but not all of it is.

There is a blindness here that might be highlighted if someone were to substitute "contemporary anarchist praxis" for "9/11 conspiracy movement." Contemporary anarchist praxis is also not a monolithic movement but a diverse set of individuals and groups with very diverse opinions on a variety of subjects.  And it is quite true that some/most of anarchist theorizing is "nonsense and sloppy thinking," but not all of it is.

OK?

We've always been upfront about the fact that we discourage posts from people involved in the 9/11 conspiracy movement. Most of the time, it's pretty easy to spot those kind of posts, because those people always yammer on about Building 7 or Noam Chomsky being a "gatekeeper."

Given that policy, we've been more open-minded about other discussions around this topic. We've had some interesting discussions here about 9/11 that were insightful and didn't revolve around the received gospels as preached within the 9/11 truther movement.

Chuck

Whine about "censorship" all you want, but every website forum has a right to control what gets posted in its forum. It's called moderation, which is different than censorship. We do not allow comments here which give any favorable stance towards the 9/11 conspiracy movement. Perhaps you were making a more nuanced argument; it was hard to tell.

 I can see points on both sides; however, the "truthers" (if every there was a misnomer...) have plenty of space to speak/write their distractions. A website is a space that can be ran collectively by a group of people with similar affinities --I don't see any particular problem with such a group deciding what makes it -- and doesn't -- to the website. I'm in a collective that distributes radical literature; I'd be the first to block a decision to carry 9/11 conspiracy material. I loathe it. That said, I wouldn't oppose a 9/11 group distributing literature in my neighborhood. Do it -- there's space for that. I just don't want to be responsible for it. 

The 9/11 truthers have the freedom to pass out their literature and DVDs in any neighborhood. They run hundreds of websites and forums. Nobody is censoring their speech, least of all us.