I posted this earlier on David Rovics' blog, and though it might be worth posting here...

http://songwritersnotebook.blogspot.com/2008/03/911-truth-movement-vs-91...

David. I love your music, but I was quite disappointed when I read your 9/11 essay on Rabble.ca, and have been following your appearances on the web since then.

I wanted to ask you a couple of questions directly, and thought your blog would be the best place to do so.

First, I wanted to tell you that I was disappointed because I felt your article was written based on your emotions, and did not actually discuss any factual information. I understand and share your frustration regarding the abrasiveness of some 9/11 Truthers, but feel that your comments contribute to the divisiveness that many of us on The Left are trying to patch up.

(Article continues below)

After reading your article, it seemed quite clear to me that you had not examined the evidence of 9/11 fully, and when questioned on Kevin Barrett's radio show, you refused (or were unable) to name any of these "scientists" who have convinced you that those investigating 9/11 should move on to more "verifiable conspiracies". You source only the dubious Popular Mechanics article as your evidence (which has been completely refuted in the book Debunking 9/11 Debunking by Dr. David Ray Griffin). Can you name even one of these scientists? Can you explain how they convinced you?

I'd also really like a clarification on where you stand on re-investigating 9/11. There seem to be a few contradictions in your comments on the issue.

In your article, you seem to be attempting to convince those investigating alternative 9/11 theories that "there is nothing to see here, so move along". Yet, on Barrett's radio show you say you DO support a new investigation and that we need to find out the truth. This is a little confusing to some of us. Should we, in your opinion, give up our pressure for a new investigation (as you suggest in your article) or continue investigating (as you suggest on the radio)?

Also, I have read comments by a fellow who said he had correspondence with you, and that you said you agreed with acclaimed journalist Robert Fisk's position on the issue

Here is Mr. Fisk's opinion published in the Independent newspaper,

I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.

I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-even-i-question-the-t...

You have been quoted as saying "I agree with Fisk's article! much shorter than mine, too, and better..."

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396101.html?c=on (scroll down to comments)

Is this your comment? If so, how do you reconcile this with this paragraph from your article?:

When you do look beyond this mass of misinformation for real experts, you will easily find pilots who can discount the claims of the Truthers that maneuvering the planes into the towers was a particularly challenging thing for people with only a little flight training to pull off. You will easily find mechanical engineers familiar with the structural flaws in the design of the WTC that allowed it to collapse in the first place, and physicists who can explain why such large buildings would appear to be imploding as if in a controlled demolition, or why people on the scene would have thought they were hearing explosions, etc.

Again, many of us on The Left who support the 9/11 Truth Movement would appreciate a simple clarification of your position.

At the moment, many government apologists and defenders of the "official story" are using your article to support their argument that 9/11 Truthers are just a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists. If you truly do support a new investigation, and think that the truth about 9/11 is worth investigating, would you be willing to pen another essay to clarify the contradictions in your comments, and set the record straight?

Thanks for your time, and keep playin' those great songs!

David's appearance on Kevin Barrett's radio show can be heard here:

http://mp3.wtprn.com/Barrett/0804/20080408_Tue_Barrett1.mp3