Hartford Advocate Covers 9/11 Symposium, 9/11 Truth and Controlled Demolition
(Please leave some educated and polite comments below the article at the link.I am deeply disappointed in the coverage which ignored so many aspects of the Symposium and the evidence for controlled demolition presented by Jones and Gage.)
http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5546
Theories of 9/11
Last year, St. Joseph's College hosted a symposium for those who doubt the official version of what happened on 9/11. Are their doubts justified, or paranoid?
By Jennifer Abel
According to a 2006 Scripps-Howard poll, over a third of Americans believe high-ranking officials either helped commit the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, or at least allowed them to happen. Other polls report even greater levels of cynicism.
Where do you draw the line separating “fringe conspiracy theory” from “mainstream phenomenon”? We’re not sure, but if one-third of the populace isn’t the mainstream it’s at least a significant tributary of it.
So last November, when we learned that the Connecticut Citizens for a New 9/11 Investigation were hosting a symposium at St. Joseph’s College in West Hartford, we paid it more attention than the usual “UFOs killed JFK” conspiracy e-mails that flood our in-box: rather than delete the message, we called the contact number within.
Distrusting the government is like drinking wine: if you never do it, you’re probably too uptight. If you do it in moderation, it’s very good for your health. But if you do it too much you make yourself ridiculous. Where on this spectrum do the 9/11 deniers fall? Not in the “uptight” zone, that much we knew. The question was, did they have a healthy anti-government buzz or a sloppy-drunk one?
Symposium organizer Damon Bean was quick to distance his group from what he considers the sloppy-drunk 9/11 deniers, those who claim that (for example) the government fired missiles at the Pentagon and hid this by pretending to hijack a plane, whose passengers are presumed alive and in government custody to this day.
Here’s what Bean told us: “Although we all have personal questions about other aspects of the official story, our group and thus the symposium focuses almost exclusively on the scientific and testimonial evidence for controlled demolition of the three towers [in the World Trade Center] because we believe the evidence against the official explanation in this area is so overwhelming.”
Controlled demolition means someone planted explosives in the towers long before the planes hit. If true, that has terrifying implications.
Yes it does, Bean agreed. Some lies, he argued, are so huge their very size helps keep them hidden because “the lie’s too enormous … if you accept [the truth], your whole worldview changes.”
- Radical Pragmatist's blog
- Login to post comments
The name of this event was...
"9/11: Family Members, First Responders & Experts Speak Out" yet I don't see mention of Bob McIlvaine, Donna Marsh O'Connor, Patty Casazza, Manny Badillo, John Feal, Sean Riordan, William Pepper, and Cynthia McKinney anywhere in this article. Why is that?
Who Is? Archives
Comment 1
RP. it's hard to be polite in response to such rude, flippant, disrespectful, and ill-argued writings of a purported journalist, citing purported academics making specious arguments. But thanks for the suggestion, a good one. To the Hatrford Advocate's credit, they don't moderate comments. Sorry for the bad formatting - that's how I posted it.
--------------------------
A Moose said: "Why classify as a conspiracy that which is easily explained by general incompetence?" The question is rather: "Why do so many accept the explanation of general incompetence for that which cannot be explained by incompetence?" Ms. Abel attempts to use Occam's Razor, without understanding that this only means that the simpler of explanations that explains all phenomenon is preferred.
Ms. Abel, your article was rude, flippant, and very poorly argued. Show some respect for very serious issues raised by good, smart people. This includes 9/11 family members that spoke at the event, as you failed to even mention. Here are the words of one of those you tried to mock:
http://mujca.com/911familymember.htm
Your writing strikes me as an example of what English professor Eric Larsen writes about in his book A Nation Gone Blind: America in an Age of Simplification and Deceit (2006).
http://www.ericlarsen.net/books.html
Here's his latest essay on this phenomenon:
http://www.ericlarsen.net/foodforthought1.1.1.2008.html
With your absurd analogy to ostracism of drunks, you've taken serious issues of science, forensics, law, and politics, and turned them into juvenile mockery, not worthy of even high school student.
What's sad is that you got a psychology professor and history professor to use their credentials in support of the same
specious speculations about the motives and views of people at the conference.
Remarkably, Stuart Vyse's website contains this quote:
"My most important advice for students: Ask questions. There are few certainties in life, and the only way to separate
information from misinformation is to probe the logic and evidence behind the things you hear."
- Stuart Vyse
Good advice. Before misstating and misapplying Occam's Razor, did he first probe the logic and evidence behind what
the government and corporate media say about 9/11, then probe the logic and evidence of speakers at this conference? After all, it is the government with control over the evidence that has the burden and duty of explaining crimes on U.S. soil. Professor Vyse begs the question by asking us to believe that "9/11 conspiracy theories" are related to the "psychology of irrational behavior, superstition and belief in the paranormal."
Just looking at the impossible physics of the so-called "collapses," it is obvious that it is he that believes in the paranormal. Or more likely, he just hasn't bothered to look at the evidence, and takes the authoritarian and most un-American view that questioning the government is inherently wrong.
In trying to mock, you and the professors made mockeries of yourselves and your chosen professions.
Comment 2
I criticized Professor Goldberg without explaining why. He makes the same specious argument as Mark Fenster of University of Florida School of Law: more people distrusting the government means that more people are willing to raise irrational questions. Once again, this begs the general question of whether that distrust is irrational, or rather a rational response to government actions and inactions. Further, it begs the specific question of whether questions about 9/11 are rational.
As a student of social movements, Professor Goldberg should be well aware that citizens have revealed deadly lies by government and corporations, for example about toxin releases or unsafe pharmaceuticals. They have also revealed the corruption of science by profit-seeking corporations and captured regulatory agencies. 9/11 has been very profitable for some, and the event itself was not more deadly than government and corporate lies about toxins and pharmaceuticals. In this context, Professor Goldberg should be aware that distrust of government cannot be considered unjustified or irrational without looking at the facts, which he has not done.
Perhaps I am guilty of what Professor Goldberg and Fenster did by extrapolating their pre-9/11 theories of "conspiracy theory" to the facts of 9/11. I consider government and corporations to be organizationally willing and capable to carry out, and cover up, terrible acts, and am not surprised that government could be complit in at least covering up the facts of 9/11. It is those facts which were discussed at the Hartford conference, and those facts which Professor Goldberg needs to address before claiming ex cathedra that questions about 9/11 are a priori absurd.
Thank You
Those where great posts!!!
When I said polite, I meant lets destroy her peice with intelligence and not name calling...which you and others have done brilliantly.
I was on a local radio show last night to rebut her...
I hope others from blogger , post some more comments there.....
Radical Pragmatist
Thanks, RP
Is a copy of the show available? Thanks for doing that.
Reason has a post on Abel's article:
http://reason.com/blog/show/124760.html
A couple of comments say that you wouldn't look for explosives residue first, you would look for shock damage that would be more visible. Does anyone know about that?