|
The Puzzling Suspension of
Incredulity to the “Official” 9-11 Theory
Kim Petersen
Dissident
Voice
Thursday Aug 30, 2007
Debunking
9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders
of the Official Conspiracy Theory
By David Ray Griffin
(Olive Branch Press, 2007)
ISBN: 978-1-56656-686-5
According to a categorical assertion by the Association
of Muslim Scholars’ most senior member, al-Fayyadh, the Iraqi
resistance has killed no less than 35,000 US soldiers and wounded
no less than 70 thousand…
The outrageous neocon-concocted lies of the Iraqi
government being in possession of weapons-of-mass destruction,
that US forces were liberating the Iraqi people, that only 30,000
Iraqis have been killed, that the invasion-occupation was not
about seizing control of Iraqi oil, that the US was not aiding
Israeli interests have all been exposed. Given the plethora of
undeniable mendacity surrounding the immoral, illegal, and lethal
enterprise of aggressing Iraq (not to forget Afghanistan), it
is utterly amazing that some people, especially progressives,
continue to cling to the version of “reality” spun by the neocons
and Zionists.
That media continue to publish the relatively low
number of fatalities among US soldiers, and completely ignore
other accounts, is mind-boggling. Yet, the corporate media (and
most progressive media) remain fixed on a much lower figure approaching
4000.
But, most mind-boggling is the dearth of skepticism
to the neocons’ version of what happened on 9-11 — the event
that was seized upon as a justification for what is a litany of
war crimes and crimes against humanity wreaked by the US state
— including the supreme international crime, as determined
by the Nuremberg Tribunal, described as encapsulating “the accumulated
evil of the whole.”
(Article continues below)
Progressivism and 9-11 Truth Seeking
Yet some progressives have taken to castigating
fellow progressives for coming to conclusions about 9-11 that
differ from the US government version (a feat which really calls
into question the castigators’ adherence to tenets of progressivism,
such as a commitment to diversity, free inquiry, freedom of thought,
and free speech). It also leaves such critics open to charges
of left gatekeeping. Of course, these voices that adhere to the
“official” neocon version of 9-11 have a right to present their
opinions, but to determine in what way other people should direct
their energies and disparage them for not heeding their advice
is regressive with the ultimate result that it argues against
encouraging people to think critically for themselves.
I previously wrote an article to this effect.
Some people quibbled with certain points.
One reader questioned my, supposedly, referring
to the “scientific evidence,” as per the noted writer on 9-11,
Noam Chomsky, as “essentially worthless.” What I wrote is that
I share Chomsky’s skepticism, but importantly, I added a proviso:
“not the level of skepticism.” In other words, I do
not consider the evidence as “essentially worthless.”
The article was not an examination or analysis of
the evidence. Instead, it was about how some progressives engage
in disparaging an involved citizenry. I found this unprincipled
and supported the right of people to seek “truth.”
Science and 9-11
Certainly, the “official” 9-11 view is not scientific.
It is a post hoc explanation designed to fit a preconceived agenda.
Although scientists will try to explain phenomena, science is
not driven a posteriori but by testable hypotheses where
experiments are conducted or natural observations are carried
out. This is the scientific method. To date, I know of no controlled
experiments carried out to test whether steel-laced high rises
will collapse demolition- or pancake-style when struck by airplanes.
Another reader, John Pontrello, presented a very
compelling rationale for such experimentation and why the “official”
9-11 theory has huger ramification:
[I]f the official conspiracy theory is true, we
had better vacate every building in the United States immediately
in case a fire breaks out and the building collapses killing
thousands of people. Also, being that a building collapse is
far riskier on all fronts than damage and casualty from fire,
every building owner in America should be forced to insure specifically
against pancake collapse. All high rise buildings should be
temporarily evacuated until such a time when they are properly
studied to ensure that they will not spontaneously collapse
killing thousands of people. 9/11 has really opened up the possibility
that buildings spontaneously collapse, so I argue that they
should not be used anymore until they are proven safe. If three
people were tossed and killed from a roller coaster on one day,
would you put your children on it? Furthermore, every building
in America should abandon evacuation drills for fire and replace
those mandatory drills with Pancake evacuation drills where
something like window ejection with parachutes are provided,
since stairwell evacuations will not protect one from the upper
floors falling on them.
He also challenged me: “get off the fence and pick
your side Kim.”
To pronounce on 9-11 requires, preferably, either
expertise in the matter at hand or a willingness to delve deeply
into a plethora of evidence (at least that which has been made
available; the non-release of evidence throws the Bush administration
under heavy suspicion) and attempt to sort fact from fiction,
possibility from impossibility, probability from improbability.
I am naturally skeptical, and I have always been deeply skeptical
of the “official” explanations emanating from the corporate media
(and progressive media) and government about 9-11.
But there must be a way to lean toward what best
approximates the truth. One way, is to determine motives. A well
recognized motive has always been personal enrichment. Evidence
from 9-11 points to many protagonists in this regard, including
people within the military-industrial complex and one World Trade
Center owner. The motive attached to the alleged 9-11 attackers
of hating American freedoms is risibly pathetic and self-defeating
for its promulgators in that since 9-11 American freedoms have
been severely curtailed. If this was, indeed, the motivation of
alleged 9-11 attackers, then it represents a victory for the alleged
haters of American freedoms?
In addition to assessing motive, one should also,
of course, examine what evidence is available. Science has been
a point of contention among people in the 9-11 debate. In science,
if one peg of a theory can be knocked out, then the theory should
be abandoned. If one peg of the “official” 9-11 theory can be
disproven, then the rest of the explanation is rendered dubious.
The “official” 9-11 theory is attackable on nearly all its foundations,
indicating just how wobbly it is.
Dr. David Ray Griffin has been a foremost writer
on what transpired on 9-11, which he compellingly avers to be
an insider job. Griffin is a theologian and some people attack
him on this basis. This, however, is a thoroughly arrogant, elitist,
and self-defeating argument that must be utterly refuted because
of what it represents. First, it assumes that only experts are
able to speak on a topic with authority. Second, it assumes that
experts are correct, but that this is false is easily revealed
by the fact that experts disagree among themselves. Third, it
assumes that “average” folks cannot train themselves to become
experts. Fourth, it assumes that “average” folks cannot understand
the intricacies of specialized subject areas. The logical outcome
of such assertions is that non-specialists must rely on experts
to inform them how they should think — a complete sop to
critical thinking and egalitarianism.
Griffin has done his homework and has written five
books on 9-11. His latest is Debunking
9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders
of the Official Conspiracy Theory. He assaults the “official
conspiracy theory” from many quarters: the stupendous unlikelihood
of cell phones operating at high altitude in 2001, the glaring
discrepancies in “official” time sequences reported, the likelihood
of the alleged pilots being able to carry out the maneuvers they
are alleged to have done, the pancake theory of WTC buildings
collapse, etc.
WTC 7
The weakest link in the “official” theory
appears to be its explanation of the demolition-style collapse
of WTC building 7: a building which was not struck by planes;
had no demonstrably large, nor hot, fires burning; and was foretold
as having collapsed ahead of time; and which the 9-11 Commission
did not even try to explain.
Griffin asks why, if WTC 7 was awash in flames,
no photographers and TV camera crews on the scene recorded this
spectacle.
Griffin calls WTC 7 “one of the [9-11] Commission’s
most amazing omissions. According to the official theory, building
7 demonstrated, contrary to the universal conviction prior to
9/11, that large steel-frame buildings could collapse from fire
alone, even without having been hit by an airplane. This demonstration
should have meant that building codes and insurance premiums for
all steel-frame buildings in the world needed to be changed. And
yet the 9/11 Commission, in preparing its 571-page report, did
not devote a single sentence to this historic event.”
Griffin cites the demolition industry website Implosion
World’s statement that an implosion is “by far the trickiest
type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting
companies in the world that possess enough experience …
to perform these true building implosions.” Griffin then
asks: “Can anyone really believe that fire would have just
happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably
produced by only a few demolition companies in the world?”
Griffin points out that there was extensive foreknowledge
of WTC 7’s imminent collapse among firefighters and medical workers.
Griffin quotes medical worker Decosta Wright: “they measured out
how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where
we could stand,” which was “5 blocks away.”
How was this foreknowledge explained? Damage plus
fire — both of which Griffin deconstructs.
The words of WTC owner Larry Silverstein on PBS,
give credence to a demolition about to occur: “I remember getting
a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that
they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire,
and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest
thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and
we watched the building collapse.”
Wielding Occam’s Razor
Physicist Manuel Garcia took a stab at explaining
the demolition-style collapse of WTC 7. He constructed a Mouse
TrapTM-like explanation for how the “dark fire” formed
and brought WTC 7 free falling into its footprint.
He writes of falling debris rupturing the oil pipes
of a fuel distribution system, the fuel distribution system pumps
oil up causing a diesel fuel gusher burning with excess air; the
diesel fuel spill spreads out along Floor 5 and spills down elevator;
oil pools near a truss and is ignited by local office fires, resulting
in further combustion; heat is trapped; the thermally weakened
truss fails, the loss of support low in the eastern interior propagates
to the roof, the weight (and dynamic force) of material falling
onto the diaphragm based on Floor 5 tips this rigid layer of the
building, this causes failure of column joints to the diaphragm,
lack of vertical support through the diaphragm progresses up the
interior of the building west of Truss 2, a progressive collapse
propagates up and material falls freely; since the building implodes,
the exterior walls fall in.
Nine-11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan says Garcia’s
WTC explanations are “based on false or unsubstantiated
claims” and disses the speculative “string of improbable
events” in Garcia’s “dark fire” theory.
Thereafter Ryan delves into ad hominem and the tactic
of involving Garcia in a conspiracy theory.
Peter Webster refutes Garcia’s WYC 7 shock wave
explanation weakening integral parts of WTC 7.
Webster claims the oscillations of the WTC buildings would have
died out without further energy being pumped into the buildings,
for example, by further plane crashes in resonance with the buildings’
oscillations or timed explosions.
To decide between the “official” 9-11
theory and the other theories proffered the 9-11 truth movement,
Garcia suggests: “within the spirit of Occam’s Razor, of seeking
explanations for the WTC building collapses that require the fewest
number of ad hoc assumptions (e.g., no conspiracies).”
Occam’s Razor — also referred to as the Principle
of Parsimony — holds that the simplest theory is preferable;
therefore, any explanation of any phenomenon should make as few
assumptions as possible. But Garcia relies heavily on assumptions
in his “dark fire” theory.
The demolition theory is simple. It requires only
that one assume that some person(s) rigged the WTC 7 with explosives.
This is less crazy than assuming Osama bin Laden’s freedom-hating
Arabs piloted the planes and set off the first ever fire-induced
demolition of a high rise building.
Griffin utterly dismisses the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (federal agency NIST) which theorized
excessive falling debris and long-burning fires as being capable
of bringing down WTC 7.
The most serious problem with this [NIST] theory,
however, is that it is completely inadequate to the empirical
facts. Damage to one face of the building plus small fires on
a few floors – plus perhaps really big fires on the fifth floor
— could not explain why the building collapsed on a debris
pile only three stories high, as this would have required the
81 columns of this 47-story-high columns to break into several
pieces simultaneously. This damage and fire could not explain
why the building came down virtually free fall speed. They could
not explain the squibs, the molten metal, or the sulfidized
steel. The official theory, in other words, cannot explain why,
if this was not an example of controlled implosion, it was a
perfect imitation thereof.
Conclusion
Who is behind the 9-11 terrorist attack? Elsewhere
Griffin answered:
It is, in any case, already possible to know,
beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction
of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by
domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten
access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably
would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings
collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding
buildings. Federal officials, however, could have gotten access
and would have had motivation to bring the buildings straight
down. They would also have had the ability to orchestrate a
cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report
to The 9/11 Commission Report to the NIST Report.
The evidence that the destruction of the WTC was
an inside job has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream
press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush’s advice
not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories.” We have seen,
however, that it is the Bush administration’s conspiracy theory
that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted
by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.
Griffin has proffered a theory counter to the “official”
9-11 theory. Those people dedicated to free thinking will reject
the advice of some progressives to ignore non-“official” theories
of 9-11 as “conspiracy”; they will consider competing theories
that purport to explain the events of 9-11; they will arrive at
their own conclusions.
Three WTC buildings fell straight down, demolition-style,
into their footprints. The Bush administration stood by as forensic
evidence was removed, and it blocked any meaningful investigation
of 9-11. The “official” 9-11 theory asks me to trust those people
proven untrustworthy and suspend my skepticism. This I will not
do. Who the insiders of 9-11 are, I can only speculate.
Full skepticism, however, must greet the US government
accusations that al Qaeda is behind 9-11. The US government, contrary
to its own legal tradition, ignored any presumption of innocence.
When al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden denied that his organization
was not the perpetrator, the US, specifically the White House,
demanded that Bin Laden prove that he was not behind 9-11. The
same proving-a-negative tactic was used with Iraq: the US demanded
that Iraq’s president Saddam Hussein prove that he has no weapons-of-mass-destruction.
When no weapons-of-mass-destruction were found, the White House
responded that the Iraqis were not telling the truth.
Furthermore, when Taliban leader Mullah Omar agreed
to hand over the suspect bin Laden (who, as Griffin notes, is
on no FBI wanted lists for 9-11) if the US provided evidence of
his involvement in 9-11, the US never replied. The invasions-occupations
of Afghanistan and Iraq are the outcomes.
Based on the evidence available (and especially
the parties involved), Occam’s Razor leads me to dispense with
the “official” 9-11 theory.
A Final Challenge
Pontrello challenges adherents of the “official”
9-11 theory:
Try this: the next time you walk a big city, gaze
up at a massive building and picture a relatively small burning
hole near the top of it. Then imagine it burning for an hour
on only a few floors and then spontaneously pulverizing into
fine dust before your eyes as if on cue. It took a few times
for me to de-program my mind from the brainwashing, but once
I did, it was liberating. I laugh now when I look at those three
towers come down like that, and listen to the official story
defenders try to explain pancake collapse as the explanation.
I try to imagine what could make all the steel columns, joints,
concrete and trusses simultaneously give way and allow for absolutely
zero resistance from the otherwise intact structure below the
point of impact. It is impossible and that is the truth. The
only way those buildings fell like that was from controlled
demolition and I don’t care what so-called experts say.
I know what
I saw, and I know what makes sense.
Griffin’s book is a good place to start for
open-minded people who are critical thinkers. Who the perpetrators
of 9-11 were is important. It would, for one, add impetus to cease
the genocidal occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be
a blow to Ziocon plans to aggress Iran. It would also lay the
path for punishment of those individuals responsible for 9-11
and the subsequent warmongering based on the lies of the “official”
9-11 story. If the perpetrators were sufficiently punished, this
might stand as a deterrence to others drawn by the corrupting
influence of power and money. Even if it is no deterrent, it is
a partial victory for justice in a world that sorely needs such
victories.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
