You are here

Why do Larvartus Prodeo, WebDiary and other alternative news sources impede discussion of 9/11?

President John F Kennedy once famously cited the words of the ancient Greek Law maker Solon, who decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. Yet many supposedly independent web-sites do precisely that. These include Larvartus Prodeo and Webdiary. in regard to the burning controversy over the 9/11 attacks.

In February this, year a post I made to a discussion on Larvatus Prodeo concerning 9/11:

"I think it's time people questioned the very pretext of the so-called 'war on terror'. Starting in September 2008, 7 years later than I should have, I began to seriously research the controversy over the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I have carefully considered the claims of the '9/11 Truthers' and the '9/11 debunkers' and have arrived at the firm conclusion that 9/11 was a 'false flag' terrorist attack planned and orchestrated by the cabal centred on Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Bush to advance their geo-political goals.

"I urge others to seriously consider the evidence. It shouldn't take long form anyone with an open objective mind to see that a massive cover-up has occurred. And where there's a cover-up a crime has usually occurred.

"Many credible and very well credentialed people, for example, those listed at are demanding that new proper investigations, unlike the cover-ups conducted by NIST and the 9/11 Commissions, be held.

However, it was deleted by the site owner Mark Bahnisch. On 19 February, Mark Acknowledged that he had deleted the post, stating:

"I'm not prepared to host 9/11 truther discussions."

In response, on the same day, I asked:

"Do you consider the issue unimportant?

"... or do you believe you know for a fact that the account of the 9/11 attacks given by the Bush administration is true?"

Mark Bahnisch's response, also on the same day, was:

"James - it's not our practice to enter into discussion of moderation decisions, as the comments policy indicates."

I left it for a while to respond further. On 6 March, whilst I was also campaigning as an independent candidate in the Queensland State elections, I wrote:

"Please consider again, what I wrote.  I did not study the question properly until 7 years after it happened.

"Until the middle of 2007 it never seriously entered my head that the Bush administration would have been so monstrous as to deliberately commit the crime of 11 September 2001.

"I point this out only to show that I was not the kind of person who has  lightly come to the view that I have."

I will quote the last post (not made by myself) on on Online Opinion discussion about this question:

'If there was a possibility of complicity by sectors other than the alleged Saudi / UAE "hijackers", which if you read BOTH sides of the argument there seems to be, then this is a most important subject, to be discussed and investigated.

'Any one who says one side has "been completely debunked" needs a self-inflicted slap in the face.'

"If you persist in your decision to censor discussion of this critical issue, I don't believe that your site visitors will thank you in the longer term.

"Yours sincerely,

"James Sinnamon

"Pro-democracy independent
candidate for Mount Coot-tha"

I got no further reply.

On 12 May, I mentioned the issue in passing in the discussion "Murdoch: the current days of the Internet will soon be over":

"... why are so many truly independent websites -, - constantly crying out for money, whilst those ostensibly alternative independent websites, who accept corporate funding, have become obviously compromised (for example, by refusing to discuss the 9/11 controversy)?"

This drew a few interested responses, including from one who said he didn't realise that 9/11 was a taboo topic. A subsequent post I made was placed in the moderation queue, but did not appear, whilst my post following that one did appear. The post which did not appear was:

"Well, I certainly hope the LP moderators will reconsider what I was told was their policy of imposing a blanket ban on discussion of the topic to which you referred. Not long ago I put to John Quiggin that his disapproval of discussion of that topic on his website was misguided. Some discussion ensued. I would say that I won that relatively short argument, but even if I had not, his expressed fears that it would derail discussion were never realised.

"In fact, in my own experience, questioning the principle justification for the so-called 'war on terror', the removal of our rights to free speech, habeus corpus and other civil rights, previously taken for granted, does more than anything else to put such discussions back on the rails.

"If you still truly believe 'Al Qaeda' 'did it', then I urge you to spend ten minutes to view the first part of a two part YouTube broadcast, which I believe was made by US High School Physics teacher David Chandler. If you agree with me that his case is sound and solidly backed by the evidence, then perhaps you will want to then view the second part.

I don't think you will regret having spent your time doing so.

The following post, which was published, but the content of which appears to have been ignored in regard to the previous post, was:

"I believed for many years that Lindy Chamberlain killed baby Azaria.

"I also believed for many years that what I considered to be ruthless dangerous Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan had largely got what they deserved after 2001. I now know better (even though I still have concerns about political Islam and high immigration) because I have taken the trouble to study the evidence.

"You should do the same


"It would greatly help if the LP moderators were to heed the words of JFK when he cited the views of Solon in support of the open, democratic and accountable society he was trying to bring about:

'… the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.'

… and accordingly approve this, as well as my previous post.

The responses, so far, from a few regular LP contributors, dispute the case of the 9/11 Truth movement, but at least they demonstrate that unlike the LP moderators, they are interested in discussing 9/11.

However, as one post has not been approved and the previous post from February was deleted, there is no guarantee that a fair and balanced discussion can proceed.

See also: "The end of the Taliban?" of 29 May 09, a discussion on in which two of my posts were deleted and I was banned for 24 hours, "John Quiggin censors JFK's speeech against secret societies" of 31 May 09, a discussion forum on, "Pakistani refugees" of 1 Jun 09, a very helpful article about the current conflict in Pakistan.


Title was "9/11 conspiracies". - JS

Why do Larvartus Prodeo, WebDiary and other alternative news sources impede discussion of 9/11? How about "because it's a load of rubbish..."

Frankly, I'm disappointed this subject has turned up on this blog. 9/11 truthout beliefs are like religion: you either fervently believe the conspiracies, or you don't. In my experience, no amount of discussion will sway one camp or the other, which is why I too banned discussion on roeoz. End of story. There is ample material on the web to form an opinion with. Google the matter, and leave us all alone...... I'm sick to the back teeth of even mentioning it.


Mike wrote, "In my experience, no amount of discussion will sway one camp or the other, ..."

It is my own experience that those who attempt to defend the official explanation of 9/11 quickly give up.

If you don't believe me, check out these discussions: Tactics in a cosmic war", "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oil, oil, oil","What do we do about George W Bush?", "Bush's democracy of hypocrisy", "Australia has no business in Afghanistan" and "War: not in my name" on Online Opinion and Weekend reflections of 17 Apr 09 and It’s over of 21 Jan 09 (which was extended into the Monday message board of 19 Jan 09).

Quite possibly I have not swayed the other 'camp' (as often happens in discussions in which participants on at least one side of the debate is determined to cling to its pre-conceived opinion regardless of the evidence presented). Nevertheless, important and useful resources have been created and the fact that defenders of the official explanation of 9/11 quickly give up shows that this issue can be quickly resolved, contrary to what you have implied.

Only one discussion tat I have been involved with was prolonged. That was the 9/11 Truth forum on Online Opinion which I initiated in September last year. After January this year, no serious challenge to the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement endued. The one contributor, who attempted to address any of my arguments at all gave up and hasn't been heard from since on OLO.

As a consequence, use of 9/11 as a catch-all justification for each and every crime of President George Bush has become far less common on Online Opinion and other forums in which I participate these days. So, it would seem to me that there is good reason to discuss this issue.

Mike continued, "... you either fervently believe the conspiracies, or you don't ..."

This is anti-scientific hogwash. I don't "fervently believe" the "conspiracies". I have become convinced of the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement because I have taken the trouble to study the evidence. I might add that I did so extremely belatedly, that is over six years later than I should have. I know of people who saw 9/11 for what it was on the day, and that is because they were capable of observing with their own eyes what had happened rather than allowing the newsmedia to tell them what had happened.

So, why won't you do the same as what I did, at least, at this very late stage? Or, if you insist that you have, have, why won't you enlighten the rest of us as to why you apparently uncritically accept the Bush administration's version of 9/11?

What's so special about the events of 9/11 that would prevent a proper investigation from establishing the truth of what occurred? As with any crime, evidence has been left in the form of eyewitness testimony, audio, video, photographic records, seismographic, thermal and other recordings as well as physical evidence. (If you want a succinct presentation of some this evidence, then please view the You Tube Broadcasts, "9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories" part 1 and part 2, each of which is less than 10 minutes in length.)

For what reason do you suggest that it is any less possible to learn the truth of 9/11 than it would, as examples, to have established the truth about the death of Azaria Chamberlain, the existence of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction or whether Howard Government ministers knew that AU$296million was paid in bribes to the regime of Saddam Hussein by the Australian Wheat Board?

Mike continued, "... which is why I too banned discussion on roeoz (the Running on Empty Oz (roeoz) mailing list)."

That's most disturbing.

How can any avowedly open-minded critical-thinking person ban discussion on what is the principle justification for the so-called 'war on terror' and the removal of civil liberties and human rights of ordinary Australians?

Mike, could you tell us how you would respond to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's words spoken to Jim Lehrer on the US Public Broadcasting network's NewsHour program in the US and cited by ABC Radio's The World Today:

"... the bottom line is this: It's the right place to be.

"When you think about Afghanistan, think about this. I cannot remove from my mind the image of the twin towers coming down. We are there because terrorists, operating out of the safe haven of Afghanistan, caused that to happen. They also, having been trained in Afghanistan, were responsible for murdering nearly a hundred Australians in Bali a year later.

"We have therefore a combined responsibility to do whatever we can to make sure Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for terrorism again."

Given that you evidently accept Kevin Rudd's premise that terrorists based in Afghanistan launched the 9/11 attacks, would you:

(A) Agree wholeheartedly with Kevin Rudd;
(B) Nevertheless, dispute America's and Australia's right to attack the terrorists' safe haven inside Afghanistan; or
(C) Have no opinion?

Mike wrote, "There is ample material on the web to form an opinion with. Google the matter, and leave us all alone...... I'm sick to the back teeth of even mentioning it."

Hadn't it occurred to you that quite a few people out there are "sick to the back teeth" of the way 9/11 has been used as the pretext to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and to justify torture, murder, imprisonment, and the removal of basic civil liberties and human rights of people all over the world including in Australia?

Hadn't it occurred to you that because so many people, who should have know better, including you and me, accepted the Big Lie of 9/11 that this country had to endure at least six more awful years of misrule by the Howard Government that it should have, together with the awful environmental, economic and social calamity that it entailed?

Why do you apparently consider those momentous issues less important than the personal inconvenience that having to think seriously about 9/11 would entail?

The following was posted to Mike Stasse's web-site,, at around midnight on the 10th and 11th of January 2013:

mikestasse wrote:

My greatest surprise came at the very end, where the author provides a post-9/11 epilogue, and says: "There is abundant evidence that September 11 was an outcome of these shadowy coalitions, which link global energy corporations, US foreign policy, the global 'intelligence community', Islamic fundamentalists, arms dealers, and illegal drug trade."

Discussion of this bizarre symbiosis [elsewhere he puns on 'Bush Laden'] remains beyond the pale of mainstream media ... and is the best example of the paralysis of public discourse due to an absence of language to comprehend top-down thinking and bottom-up action as a new mode of power ...

Frankly, I'm disappointed this subject has turned up on this blog. 9/11 truthout beliefs are like religion: you either fervently believe the conspiracies, or you don't. In my experience, no amount of discussion will sway one camp or the other.

Comment: The above post contains nothing more than Mike Stasse's own words: his own apparent recent awakening to the impossibility of the Official account of 9/11 and his earlier endorsement of that Official account and repudiation of those who who disputed that account on this web-site, together with a link back to this page. I posted the second comment, pretending to disagree with him now apparently disputing the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, but using the same words that Mike Stasse had, himself, previously used above to dismiss my own views on 9/11.

My own FireFox web browser displayed the comment as if it had been published, but the WordPress Content Management System (CMS) advised me that my comment was 'awaiting moderation'. By 8.30AM in the morning the comment had vanished. Presumably Mike Stasse had deleted the comment.

This is censorship on a site which purports to promote free and open discussion. That the post has been secretively censored and other site visitors left unaware that one visitor disagrees with the post compounds done.

What you can do: Make your objections to censorship and to promotion of pro-war propaganda known on Mike Stasse's web-site and elsewhere. Be sure to post a copy of your comment here so that should your comment also be censored, a public record can be found here.

This was posted to article "The end of the Taliban?" of 29 May 09 on and is currently awaiting moderation - JS.

For another perspective on the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, see articles on the Winter Patriot website, including More Thoughts About The War Between The USA And Pakistan of 13 May 09.

And let's not forget that, even today, there is no legal basis for the invasion of Afghanistan. The documents given to NATO by Colin Powell which supposedly proved Al Qaeda's guilt for the 9/11 attack have never been made public and documents promised by Colin Powell to the UN that would have proven Al Qaeda's guilt and thereby have made the UN legally a participant in the "war on terror", were never produced. ("Towers of Deception - the Media Cover-up of 9/11", Barrie Zwicker, p111, 2006). Anyone, who views with an open critical mind, the hard evidence contained in video "9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2" will know that the 'collapses' of the WTC twin towers were, in fact, controlled demolitions, and therefore could not have been committed by Al Qaeda.

The post included below was deleted from the discussion "The end of the Taliban?" by Professor John Quiggin. Professor Quiggin justified his action thus:

"Daggett, you've had your say on this, and you are hijacking the thread against my previous request. I'm deleting your most recent comment and will deleting anything further on this topic. Any metacommentary, attempting to dispute my decision or similar, will result in a more extensive ban. I don’t have time to waste on this kind of thing."

I intend to respond to this.

Post which was deleted from John Quiggin's blog


Many of your points are valid. I well remember being appalled and disgusted by the behaviour of the Taliban rulers, particulary for their barbarous destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan.

In 2001/2002, I welcomed the US invasion of Afgjhanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban on those grounds and because I fully accepted the fiction that 'Al Qaeda' which had been given sanctuary by the Taliban, had perpetrated the 9/11 atrocity. Even when I protested against the invasion of Iraq, I never questioned the US government account of 9/11. Like Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911 I was critical of the US for not pouring more resources into Afghanistan to finish off Al Queda instead of launching the invasion of Iraq, which clearly had no relationship with Al Qaeda.

I became subsequently dismayed to learn that, instead of the former Taliban rulers of Afghanistan being totally repudiated by Afghans, they were able to undergo a resurgence. Whether or not the insurgents could be viewed as the same as the former Taliban rulers, the fact that many Afghanis found them preferable to the United States and the government they had intalled, is surely an appalling indictment of the US occupation, so it seems to me that we have not been given the complete story about Afghanistan. It seems that for a more complete account, we need to look on web-sites such as Winter Patriot and Global Research.

I can't know what would result from a US withdrawal from Afghanistan, but it could not possibly be worse than what woud result form their continued occupation.

More recently, I have made the effort to study the evidence of 9/11 and have realised, over seven years too late, that I was wrong to have accepted the official account of 9/11. I strongly suggest that you do the same. Please, at least, look at the video I gave you the link to. It is less than 10 minutes in length. I am happy to discuss with you any questions you have about that or any other 9/11 Truth material.

Donald Oats, I accepted the story of the respective impacts of the two planes and the fire causing total collapse of the twin towers at near free-fall unquestioningly for over 6 years. However, it has since become obvious that explanation does not take account of all the observations and eyewitness testimony. I urge you also to look at that video I gave you the link to, and then ask yourself if you are still quite so confident of what you have written.

Both the towers were designed to withstand a head on impact from a Boeing 707, a plane comparable to the 767's which struch the Twin Towers. Analysis has shown that there was easily enough structural strength left after the impacts for the full weight of the parts of the towers above to be supported. Most of the fuel, which did did not ignite in the air surrounding the towers, burnt out within minutes and could not have possibly caused the temperature of the steel to be raised anywhere near the temperature that was necessary to cause total structural failure.

The following was posted here. As I noted in my last comment Professor John Quiggin has threatened to permanently ban me from his site for such 'meta-comments' as this which challenge his earlier deletion of my contributions. It would be interesting to see if quoting the words of President John F Kennedy were to result in my being banned.

Dear Professor Quiggin,

How do you respond to the following words of President John F Kennedy in his speech against secret societies given on 27 April 1961:

"Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy."

By rebuking me for making known to this discussion basic facts relating to the current ongoing war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, by having deleted my earlier post, and by not having responded to questions I put to you on another occasion, it seems to me that you are, indeed, shrinking from controversy.

What if, in response to allegations that North Vietnam was invading the sovereign democratic nation of South Vietnam in the 1960's, I pointed out that most of the 'invaders' were, in fact, Vietnamese independence fighters from the south, who had been duped into being repatriated to the north following the 1954 Peace Agreement, that the South Vietnamese Government was an unelected dictatorship and that even Australia's Foreign Minister Casey had acknowledged that the Viet Minh would have won overwhelmingly, in the South as well as in the North, if the elections scheduled for 1956 had not been cancelled? How is that different from what I contributed to this discussion in regard to the current war in Afghanistan?

My intention was not to hijack this discussion. I contribute to many disucssions on these conflicts and rarely these days do they go off on long tangents. To the contrary, it seems that the discussions are put back on track, usually with a minimum of fuss, because apologists for the Bush administration tend to desist from using 9/11 as a blank cheque to excuse each and every crime of Bush and his allies. If you like, I can show you where this has happened.

If you do decide to permanently ban me from posting to your site as a consequence of my having made this post, then please say so here, so that I can know whether or not to devote more of my time to contributing to forums on this site from now on.

As I feared, my previous post citing JKF and the ancient Athenian lawmaker Solon have been deleted by Professor John Quiggin. Here are his words:

"Deleted. I think everyone is aware of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I see no benefit in having them discussed here. I specifically requested no metacommentary on my decision, and you’ve chosen to ignore that. You’re banned for 24 hours."

Update: (1 June 09): Shortly after the 24 hour ban expired, I posted the following to the discussion "The end of the Taliban?" :

If questioning what Prime Minister Kevin Rudd insists is the reason why Australia has no choice but to continue its involvement in the Afghan war, now overflowing into Pakistan, is deemed inappropriate for a forum discussing that conflict, can I at least commend Duckpond's excellent article, also about that conflict.

However, people need to be warned before they click on that link: The last time I looked, at least one of the comments appeared to contain references to subject matter deemed inappropriate for this discussion.


The setbacks to the Tamil Tigers as well as the Pakistani Taliban, however we view those movements, illustrate that it is folly to assume that popular resistance can always overpower the military might of powerful imperial nations like the US or their local proxies. Even where it succeeded as appeared to be the case in Vietnam, it was at a terrible cost in lives and material.

So, it seems to me that Ho Chi Minh and others, who tried to emulate his strategy, may not have been as smart as they have been held to be, particularly given that Ho Chi Minh failed to seize opportunities to decisively end the conflict in 1945 and 1954, claiming, retropectively that a people's war would bring victory at a cheaper cost.

I guess at least we can all sleep soundly at night in the knowledge that our rulers would never contemplate using the awesome firepower that they have used against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan against their own people.

(Copied from posted to discussion "The end of the Taliban?" following John Quiggin's deletion of post concerning 9/11 - JS)

Your comment “everyone is aware of 9/11 conspiracy theories and I see no benefit in having them discussed here” is offensive to millions around the world who are fighting for truth and justice.

Your viewpoint is now in the minority by the way.

In my experience the reason more professionals don’t speak out is because they are afraid of losing their jobs.

This is the face of modern fascism.

I invite you to debate this on my radio podcast - please contact me by email.

Thank you,
Hereward Fenton
Truth News Radio Australia