SMH hit piece on Jan Utzon

http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html

Utzon's son signs up for September 11 conspiracy theory

AS CONSPIRACY theories go, it is up there with the CIA assassination of president John Kennedy and the faked moon landings. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, have spawned a cottage industry devoted to questioning whether they were the work of al-Qaeda and hinting that it was ''an inside job''.

Now a lead figure in the self-described ''9/11 truth movement'', an American architect, Richard Gage, has revealed one of its most high-profile adherents to date: Jan Utzon, son of the world-famous designer of the Sydney Opera House, Joern Utzon.

In a video posted on YouTube during his current visit to Sydney, Mr Utzon is interviewed by Mr Gage and endorses his call for a new inquiry into the September 11, 2001, attacks.

''I think it is important that we get all the things on the table, all the different facts, and see what is actually right,'' Mr Utzon tells Mr Gage. ''Because if somebody, they are indeed trying to cover something up, it is good to get it out in the open. Because what else would they be covering up?''

Speaking in a corridor in the Sydney Opera House, Mr Gage reveals that Mr Utzon signed a petition organised by his organisation, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, demanding an inquiry a year ago.

Contacted yesterday about the comments, Mr Utzon said he was ''a bit surprised'' that the video had been posted. Yet he repeated his call for an investigation and said distrust of the media was a significant driver of that.

''I have an inborn sense [that] what is coming out in the media is slightly, or to a large extent, a distorted version of what actually happened,'' Mr Utzon said. ''This comes right back from where my father had to leave the Opera House job here in Sydney and consequent media reports on his life and his doings.''

The nine-minute conversation focuses largely on the fate of the so-called ''Building 7'', a 47-storey building north of the World Trade Centre towers, which collapsed seven hours after the planes hit the neighbouring towers without being hit.

Mr Gage has promoted the suggestion that, owing to the way the building collapsed - straight down, much like a controlled demolition using explosives - and the presence of residue from a high explosive in the debris, that it was deliberately brought down.

In an interview on New Zealand radio on Saturday, Mr Gage said thermite was ''made only in the most sophisticated defence contracting laboratories. This is not made in a cave in Afghanistan. So we're looking at some sort of different phenomena here, scheme if you will, than an al-Qaeda operation. This is why people call [the September 11 attacks] an inside job.''

Mr Gage said yesterday that Mr Utzon had no problem with him publishing the video and was happy he had joined the call for an inquiry.

A three-year investigation was conducted into Building 7's collapse by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (see separate story).

Mr Utzon said he had become interested in exploring theories about the attacks after staying at a Manly hotel whose owner introduced him to some websites. The hotel owner encouraged him to sign Mr Gage's online petition, which he did. However, he had not read any of the official reports and therefore did not regard himself as well informed.

An Opera House spokeswoman said Mr Utzon was ''entitled to his personal views outside of his professional work as architectural adviser to Sydney Opera House''.

Well, good on him, then

Note how calling for answers and accountability:
''I think it is important that we get all the things on the table, all the different facts, and see what is actually right,'' Mr Utzon tells Mr Gage. ''Because if somebody, they are indeed trying to cover something up, it is good to get it out in the open. Because what else would they be covering up?''

"''I have an inborn sense [that] what is coming out in the media is slightly, or to a large extent, a distorted version of what actually happened,'' Mr Utzon said"

Is portrayed as:
"Utzon's son signs up for September 11 conspiracy theory"

It might be an oversight, but interesting that they don't dispute the presence of "residue from a high explosive"- they just link to a story on NIST
"Mr Gage has promoted the suggestion that, owing to the way the building collapsed - straight down, much like a controlled demolition using explosives - and the presence of residue from a high explosive in the debris, that it was deliberately brought down."

Good on her, too:
"An Opera House spokeswoman said Mr Utzon was ''entitled to his personal views outside of his professional work as architectural adviser to Sydney Opera House''."

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

More Good Than Harm

Except for the first paragraph, the article works in our favor.

not that bad

of a write-up.

Am I just dreaming this, or does anyone else remember this?

I seem to remember reading some time ago about a 9/11 truther who was interviewed by a mainstream media outlet and thought he was going to finally get a fair shake from the reporter. Then, when the story first came out, he was disappointed as it appeared to be just another hit piece. However after some more careful reading he noticed that while it appeared a hit piece at first glance, there was a lot of relevant information in the article about apparent problems with the official 9/11 story and included in the article were web links etc for 9/11 truth sites so that anyone with a modicum of curiosity and some initiative could follow up and see what the fuss was about. From what I remember, this person also said that the reporter apologized later and said that he was sorry he had to do the article as a hit peace to get it by his editors, but he had intentionally tried to provide as much information as he could that might pique the readers' curiosity and lead them to follow up and investigate for themselves to see if the questions being raised about 9/11 were valid.

not really a hit piece

I think this article is pretty good apart from the usual conspiracy labels.

This is the first time 9/11 truth has hit the MSM in Australia. The story is printed on p.9 of the Sydney Morning Herald and occupies a full half page.

There is a second story also on the same page:

Fire, not a government plot, felled third tower
http://www.smh.com.au/world/fire-not-a-government-plot-felled-third-towe...

This one is quite badly informed but I would still not classify it as a hit piece.

The publication of these articles is extremely important for us here in Oz, as it breaks the dam, and will no doubt lead to more MSM attention.

I am very pleased about it.

Editor - www.911oz.com

the usual conspiracy labels ..

really annoy me ... so I sent the Sydney Morning Herald the following comment...

Dear SMH, on November 25 you published an article by SEAN NICHOLLS, misleadingly entitled "Utzon's son signs up for September 11 conspiracy theory".

I am writing to inform you that the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks is, by definition, a conspiracy theory ... ie. 19 Arab hijackers conspired to attack us ... that's a conspiracy theory.

Asking questions or expressing doubts about the official conspiracy theory does not constitute a conspiracy theory.

Demanding a proper investigation of 9/11 does not constitute a conspiracy theory.

Your journalists and editors are either ignorent of the meaning of the term "conspiracy theory" or they are consciously and intentionally peddling nonsense in support of the official conspiracy theory and its attendant cover-up.

Not to nitpick

But when you tell an editor or reporter they are "ignorent", you are inviting ridicule. Come on people, don't forget to spellcheck before clicking Send. It would be funny if the stakes weren't so very high.

Let Us Endeavor....

to restore "CONSPIRACY THEORY" to a dignified term.

Almost agree

How about as neither 'dignified' nor 'undignified,' but as simply a descriptive, non-propagandistic term, not weighed down by value judgments pro or con. 'Conspiracy' has a meaning. 'Theory' has a meaning. Both retain their meaning when used together.

Whether or not a particular 'theory' is a 'conspiracy theory;' is a question entirely separate from that of whether or not it makes any sense.

And where 'conspiracy' is used accurately, the related discussion may not necessarily be 'theoretical.' Again, the question of how theoretical or how factual is entirely separate from that of whether or not it pertains to a conspiracy.

A better, non-Orwellian future would be one in which not so much particular words, but the English language itself has been restored to dignity--when words are understood to mean what they mean, and not what government and media wanker talking-head pundits would have us think they mean. When people understand that to questioning the veracity of whatever the government and media are telling us doesn't mean that one is crazy.