The River

Monday, September 25, 2006

More 9/11


Much of the information and most of the rather limited media coverage about the 9/11 Truth Movement focuses on college professors, such as: David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, James Fetzer, Kee Dewdney, and others. In August of 2006, I began searching for statements about 9/11 by members of the intelligence services, military and government. Because of their experience in these areas, I felt their opinions about 9/11 would be an additional valuable source of information. I was surprised by the amount of criticism of 9/11 from this group...

-- Alan Miller, who provides photos, quotes and documentation of more than 50 such personages


But the main problem with the 9/11 debate is that there has not really been a debate. Instead, we have had a report from a political commission run by a Bush administration insider, Philip Zelikow. In place of a real independent investigation, we have a collection of Washington players reassuring the public by defending the government’s story line.

Studies, such as those referred to by the Popular Mechanics editors, are in fact not forensic studies of evidence but what the editor-in- chief of “Fire Engineering” called “paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.”

The explanation that the three WTC buildings collapsed as a result of damage and fire is a mere assertion. The assertion is not backed up with scientific calculation to demonstrate that the energy from the airliners, fire, and gravity were sufficient to collapse the buildings. A number of independent authorities believe that there is a very large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the buildings. Until this issue is resolved, the official explanation is merely an assertion no matter who believes it.

-- Paul Craig Roberts, "Where is the evidence?"


Some facts cannot be denied. Clearly, 9-11 was carried out by more than one person. Therefore, by definition, there was a conspiracy. What we’re arguing is that the true conspirators have abused their enormous power and the trust of the American people to concoct and to sell to the world a false conspiracy theory, to justify war and mass murder for economic and political gain.

Since the neo-cons, allied with the president, said in almost so many words that they wished for a new Pearl Harbor, why dismiss out of hand an allegation that they used their undeniably sufficient power to actually bring it about? Why has there been no full and transparent investigation? Isn’t it shocking that the federal government grabbed up all of the physical evidence, and that no police authority has conducted a true criminal investigation into 3,000 homicides?

Instead of due process of law, government officials and the mass media convicted Osama bin Laden, and had names and photos of his 19 accomplices on the Internet, literally within hours of the attacks.

-- Lawyer Philip Berg, representing William Rodriguez, a former maintenance worker at the World Trade Center, who "has filed suit in a Philadelphia federal court naming George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others as being complicit in the 9-11 attacks."

Comments:
"Until this issue is resolved, the official explanation is merely an assertion no matter who believes it."

True enough. On the other hand, so are all the claims of an "inside job" and the various (ugh) "HOP" levels. And since any possible physical evidence was carted away and melted down, it's exceedingly likely nothing will ever be resolved.

Which is the reason why people like Cockburn are somewhat agitated: essentially all the 9/11 "truth movement" has done is constructed a few slimy "throw a bunch of wild accusations and hope something sticks" videos, while hotly contesting everything that their critics posit which does not contain concrete physical proof. Proof which, as your quotes note, was all carted away and melted down.

In other words, the "truth movement" demands it's opponents adhere to standards of evidentiary perfection, while themselves claiming the lack of evidence grants them cart blanche to simply make shit up and throw out wild guesses.
 
James, I think what bothers Bruce most is the injustice of being presented with a "with us or against us" choice and the heartless finality of "we'll never know, so move along". While evidence regarding the collapse itself is lacking, there's still plenty of evidence regarding the conspiracy to commit the attacks. Some of the proliferation of wild theories is a direct response to things that really are bullshit in the official narrative.

I can sympathize with Cockburn's dismay and frustration at being called complicitous in evil. In his shoes, I've responded with much more vituperation. I may at some point resign myself to letting the whole thing drop. It's just so hard to let go of the proximate cause of the latest round of authoritarian tightening the screws.
 
It's late, I'm tired, and my HOP levels are dangerously low -- only one pale ale in the fridge, and not a particularly hoppy one either.

My Hop levels vary, and no, an increase in one does not correlate to an increase in the other. Unless it's Dales Pale Ale, then all bets are off.

I don't know, you don't know, let's call the whole thing off. But then there's this authoritarian tightening of the screws that J. Alva speaks of. I guess I need to see "Loose Change" because I'd like to make a joke about how the two dudes should have called it "Screw Loose Change" themselves. Because that's the point. If people don't loosen up a little bit, they ain't ever gonna get it. I'm not saying what "it " is. And I don't want to, that's the authoritarian nightmare again. But I know what "it" isn't. The 9/11 official conspiracy is no different than Iraq's WMD official story and Iran's extremely scary WMD-related program activities (they play the same music as used in Loose Change while enriching uranium). \

I don't agree that the "truth movement" demands it's opponents adhere to standards of evidentiary perfection. I think all they're saying, in a variety of creative ways that make Cockburn jealous and want to hit them, is that there aint' no there there. (of course there's crazy folks involved, but what does that have to do with anything? There's always crazy folks, and many are very smart nonetheless). So Cockburn, I will say again, has it bassackwards. If there's anything to get irritated about, it's not people who are passionately calling bullshit. You'd think he would have a bit more understanding of where they are coming from and why it's important. It's not like they're professionals, either, so you have to cut them (whoever it is irritating you) some slack.

Anyway, as some popster said, "We're never gonna survive, if we don't get a little crazy." "Screw Loose Change" with Seal on the soundtrack. Ah well, I can dream, can't I?
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
You might want to clean out that last comment. While obvioulsy useful it is not pertinent. Off-topic, I believe they call it ;-)

Ir emain gobsmacked that there is not wider evulsion against the fact that going into Iraq was illegal pre-emptive invasion of another sovereign nation with no discernably valid reason of any kind. That the idiotic meme that the world is better off with whoseit out of office and in a prison cell is now seen to be the primary justifying rationale speaks volumes about the world of hurt remaining for the exceptionalist USA to experience before it gets over its supernatural powers of righteousness and morality.

How loudly can I scream "WTF" ?
 
damn.

This:

Ir emain gobsmacked that there is not wider evulsion

should be:

"I remain gobsmacked that there is not wider revulsion"
 
Jon, I never realized how easy it is to get rid of a comment! Now I know. :-) heh heh heh

Many people have given up, realizing the system is exclusive. And many more are so benumbed by media and consurmerism that they don't even see the problems.
 
Post a Comment