Goldwag: Some thoughts about 9/11 Truth

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/goldwag-some-thought.html

Guestblogger Arthur Goldwag is the author of "Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons, The Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Black Helicopters, The New World Order, and many, many more" and other books.

9/11 -- the sheer shock of it, the deaths, the sense of violation-still rouses incredible emotions. The seven years of international adventurism, state-sanctioned torture, domestic spying, rampant privatization, and upward redistribution of income that followed, all of it promoted by waving the bloody flag, have left us more polarized as a society than we've been since at least the 1960s.

I recently heard from Daniel Edd III, a passionate and voluble member of the 9/11 Truth Community. "How do you feel about this guy's qualifications?" he asked, posting a link to the Wikipedia entry on Steven E. Jones. "Have you ever watched the documentary 9/11: Press for Truth?" he continued.

I do not understand how anyone could watch this documentary, argue against the victim's families, and still consider themseleves a Patriotic American Citizen. The evidence has been served up on a silver platter, and I promise you that I will see to it that the truth gets exposed.

I joined the US Army in a combat arms MOS just three months after 9/11. I believed that defending my family, friends, and fellow countrymen from those who attacked us was a cause worth dying for. My beliefs have not changed. I raised my right hand and swore to defend this country against all enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC. Now that I know beyond any doubt that Osama bin Laden and 19 cavemen did not bring down the towers, I will continue upholding my oath by pursuing the TRUE perpetrators until I take my last breath.

I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but Yeats's words in "The Second Coming" seem strangely apt when it comes to 9/11 Truth: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity." Which isn't to say that 9/11 Truthers are all "bad." Many of them -- Daniel Edd Bland III, for one -- are absolutely sincere and well-intentioned. Part of the reason I try to avoid getting into arguments with them is because I don't want to seem to be impugning their intelligence or their characters. What's "worst" in them is their critical methodology-their emotionally-colored, conspiratorial, often magically deterministic view of the world.
Consider David Ray Griffin, whose qualifications as a liberal theologian are sterling, whose political leanings are idealistic and enlightened, but whose writings about 9/11 are tendentious in the extreme.

My own mind may not be first-rate but, to paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, it's able to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas at the same time. Though I am no Truther, I believe that the Bush/Cheney administration lied to us, repeatedly and brazenly. They cynically exploited the attacks to promote a war that an unholy alliance of interests -- Israel-centric neo-conservatives; profit-hungry oilmen; evangelicals looking to hasten the advent of the End times; expatriate Iraqis seeking their return to power -- were certain would be a cake walk. But I have seen no credible evidence that Bush, Cheney or anyone else in the American government planned or abetted the attacks themselves--and my mind boggles at the sheer nastiness of some of the Truther scenarios that question whether the people on the planes really died.

I was maybe a quarter of a mile away from the North Tower that morning; the jet was over mid-town when it popped into my field of view and I didn't take my eyes off it until it disappeared in the fireball. But an hour and a half later, when I was back in Brooklyn and someone told me that the tower had just collapsed (and indeed, there'd been all kinds of rumblings outside and the sky had darkened noticeably), I insisted that they were mistaken. "It couldn't have fallen," I said. "The damage was all at the top." I was practically there, but I didn't know what I was talking about. No big surprise-as any lawyer can tell you, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. The next afternoon, I met a hard-hat on the Brooklyn Bridge who'd been working on the Pile. "Was it a bomb?" I asked him. "I don't know," he answered, "But I'll tell you this: Yesterday this country was caught sitting on the crapper, with its pants around its ankles." He didn't know anything either, but it's hard to argue with what he said.

As for Steven E. Jones, yes, he is a well-regarded physicist, but he's not a structural engineer. I've read articles by structural engineers that completely demolish his claim that the buildings collapsed at "free fall acceleration." I'm not able to follow their math, but I suspect that most members of the 9/11 Truth Community aren't either. And from what I've read about the trace quantities of chemicals associated with thermites that Jones detected on debris collected from Ground Zero, they don't remotely prove the presence of incendiary bombs--they can also be found in Freon and paint and computer equipment. I could point to websites like debunking911.com or AE911Truth.INFO or 911Myths, but most true believers would simply direct me to advocacy websites of their own.

William of Occam said it best in the 14th century: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. "Plurality should not be assumed unnecessarily." Occam's Razor, also known as the Pinciple of Parsimony, suggests that the most credible theory is almost always the most economical--the one that involves the least number of moving parts. This blog post tallies up all the people who would have had to be involved in a conspiracy in which the government deliberately blew up those buildings, manipulated fake hijackers or suicide operatives into crashing jets (or holograms of jets) into them, and corrupted thousands of scientists, law enforcement authorities, insurance inspectors, construction workers, and firefighters to rubberstamp the official story. It's much easier for me to imagine a small, well-funded group of Arabs with box cutters pulling this off (whose leaders may have hid from US bombers in caves, but who are very far from troglodytes) than half a million silent collaborators, almost none of whom have anything to gain by it-and whose number includes almost every structural engineer in the world (Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is NOT a structural engineer).

I didn't watch the movie but I know it was well-reviewed. I salute the Jersey Girls for their courage and assiduousness. I don't believe that all of the political or public safety issues that 9/11 raises have been remotely resolved either (consider NORAD's and the FAA's torpid response to NWA's rogue Flight 188 two weeks ago, if you think that sufficiently-committed hijackers couldn't knock down another American building). I'm completely in favor of airing everything that can be aired in the full glare of the press.

But I don't think it serves truth or justice to misuse science, to pretend that people who died didn't die, that jets didn't crash or that members of the Bush administration-which Lord knows is culpable for so many things-knowingly pulled any triggers.

Interesting...

Article.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

The reviewers of his book

on Amazon, except for a couple of his paid pals, are not fooled one bit. Some skewer him very nicely.

Well...

The reason I think it's interesting is because he says, "I didn't watch the movie but I know it was well-reviewed. I salute the Jersey Girls for their courage and assiduousness."

As I've said, imagine how successful this movement would be if it were synonymous with supporting the 9/11 family members, supporting the 9/11 first responders, and trying to end the horror that is the "Post-9/11 World" instead of "Controlled Demolition" and "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB," etc...

I don't agree with everything Ruppert said in this, namely that 9/11 is a dead issue (sorry Mike, but 2,973 people were brutally murdered, and their families don't know who was responsible, or how it happened, the responders are dying, and that day is STILL majorly affecting the entire world), but at least he confirms what I said about there being a concerted effort to make this movement synonymous with "Controlled Demolition" and theory over the last several years.

More than five years ago I completely and unequivocally divorced myself from the 9-11 Truth Movement. I did that because it had been co-opted and hijacked by people offering arguments and theories about 9-11 that were deeply flawed and absolutely inadmissible in a court of law.

In my opinion, if we are going to be successful, we need to change the way people perceive us. Or not. I just know that I will continue to do my thing. Supporting the families, supporting the responders, and sticking to the best possible information I can. As I've always done.

By the way, Mr. Goldwag wouldn't accept my comment which linked to my facts piece for some reason.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Well

why didn't you just say that then, instead of baiting foxii with your 'interesting' appraisal?

Really?

My comment was geared towards foxii? I didn't know that. From now on before I post a comment I will send it to you for approval.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

What we need to change

What we need to change is the way people perceive 9/11. I don't put much value in someone's 'saluting' the Jersey girls only because he understands their efforts (this without having seen the film) as being about 'political and public safety issues.' The only way truthers could become more palatable to someone like this writer would be to pretend that that's really all the truth movement is about--bureaucratic inefficiencies and public safety issues. i.e., change ourselves at the expense of the truth.

Where are the facts?

I wonder if boingboing would publish a rebuttal?

what drivel.

darkbeforedawn

Obviously a barefaced scammer/liar. And typical of the entire journalist profession except for the very few.
This article is full of disinformation, outright lies and deliberate distortions. It is difficult to know where even to begin.
The least egregious is he didn't even watch "Press for Truth" and still makes inane comments. This treasonous SOB will have to live with himself.
How do they do it?

Hello nasty

This one's almost too easy.

"I've read articles by structural engineers that completely demolish his [Steven Jones] claim that the buildings collapsed at 'free fall acceleration.' I'm not able to follow their math, but I suspect that most members of the 9/11 Truth Community aren't either."

Look out, we've got a smart guy here.

"Occam's Razor, also known as the Pinciple of Parsimony, suggests that the most credible theory is almost always the most economical--the one that involves the least number of moving parts."

No it doesn't, it says you should choose the most elegant theory that *fits all the evidence*. And 'moving parts'? Please. This truncated 'internet' form of the principle is absurd on it's face.

"..and my mind boggles at the sheer nastiness of some of the Truther scenarios that question whether the people on the planes really died."

My mind boggles at the nastiness of people who commit murder, not who ponder complex false flag events.

We even get the tired 'I was there' paragraph that has nothing to do with his 'argument'.

This explanation as to how

This explanation as to how the towers came down by the government, is alot like this following explanation as to how Santa manages to reach every house on X-mas eve. Get this:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3rbl3_the-physics-of-santa-clause_crea...

The most severe form of learning disorders are owned by those that "already know everything."

Track record established

"'...corrupted thousands of scientists, law enforcement authorities, insurance inspectors, construction workers, and firefighters ...." If Hitler did it, why couldn't Bush?

very interesting

good on Daniel Bland III for getting Goldwag to respond- the 9/11 Truth Movement is not being 'ignored'.

This guy's comments about CD are really ignorant, but reflect the quandary many people are in; "I could point to websites like debunking911.com or AE911Truth.INFO or 911Myths, but most true believers would simply direct me to advocacy websites of their own."

There are people here saying you're a shill or a traitor if you don't promote CD, and it has to be the main issue. However, while many people do find the evidence persuasive- many others don't. There's a great deal of other evidence and important questions- and it ain't 'holograms' or 'the planes were swapped and the passengers didn't die at the crash sites', like he also brings up. This guy however, couldn't be bothered to watch Press for Truth, though he won't say anything bad about the families struggle to get answers from one of the most corrupt administrations in US history.

This was my comment at boingboing:

"Was it a bomb?" I asked him. "I don't know," he answered, "But I'll tell you this: Yesterday this country was caught sitting on the crapper, with its pants around its ankles."

Right; and why? There were plenty of warnings, and the CIA was keeping info from the FBI about Almihdhar and Alhazmi
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

"I've read articles by structural engineers that completely demolish his claim that the buildings collapsed at "free fall acceleration.""

Actually, the NIST report NCSTAR 1 in Section 6.14.4 says the towers collapsed "essentially in free fall"- and they don't explain the mechanism of what they term "global collapse"- they only offer hypotheses regarding events leading up to the "initiation". And numerous engineers, including structural engineers have signed onto the AE911Truth.ORG petition calling for a full investigation.

The Commission, which was riddled with conflicts of interest and run by Bush Admin insider Philip Zelikow didn't ask the real questions, and ignored the most critical evidence- why? Without a full investigation, who's to say what really happened? Who's to say if it's simply 'incompetence' and a little 'criminal negligence' being covered up?

"the sheer nastiness of some of the Truther scenarios that question whether the people on the planes really died." Given that the reaction Goldwag had is predictable, it should be pointed out that those perpetuating the cover up benefit the most from bullshit 'theories' like 'holograms' being circulated.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

usual official media propaganda and lies

This article completely misses the fact that 9/11 is a controlled demolition inside job, per irrefutable scientific evidence ...
The article is hardly worth reading.

http://911UnitedWeInvestigate.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/911news
http://friendfeed.com/petrnews

Total Disinfo!

This guy is a FRAUD. And his article is a well planed piece of propaganda! Goes to show you how the insiders plan to spin this one. Makes me sick that we have jerks like this who on some level believe they are protecting what is right and just. They believe that the issue is above the average person's understanding and should be left in the hands of the elite. BULLSHIT ! MY RAZOR says if you believe the official story of 911 you either have not done your homework, or you're part of the cover-up. Sell your Fools Gold somewhere else.

Scallywag

Yes he's a fraud, but I wouldn't exactly call this article well planned! It sounds more like he's plagiarising other similiar, stupid articles.

Occam's Razor, in this blatantly twisted form, is the only 'scientific theory' the chronically dumbed down need to remember. But hey, at least we get the latin, and a literal translation (with the key word 'unnecessarily'). So like, duh, he must really know his stuff and everything.

I've seen preachers attempt to invoke this 'version' in defence of creationism, intelligent design etc., and it is quite worrying to see it 'catching on' elsewhere, at least in America. Yee har.

He also denies the existence of evidence (like NIST admitting freefall). Truly pathetic. But probably important.

"My own mind may not be first-rate.."
At least his slovenly worship buys him a get out.

The planning is very subtle

the right amount of jargon to misdirect someone who is only paying limited attention. Like most people.

I see what you mean

I guess I was thinking he may as well have tried to convince those paying attention too, but this would probably have made him less convincing to those who weren't.