Jonathan Kay of the National Post reveals just how ignorant he really is about 9/11.
(Edit: I changed the headline of this blog from an insult directed at Kay generally, referring to how big of an 'a-hole' he is, to something a little less offensive, and a little more apt. My apologies, Mr. Kay, you are just ignorant. -rep.)
He admits he's never read the 9/11 Commission Report or any of its rebuttals.
Jonathan Kay on the humbling frustrations of debating 9/11 "Truthers"
Posted: October 27, 2008, 1:30 PM by Jonathan Kay
Jonathan Kay
Want to fill up your inbox? Write a column denouncing the “9/11 Truth Movement.”
These are the people who dismiss the “official” 9/11 explanation as a White House-peddled lie. One Truther sect believes the American government (or rogue elements within it) planned the Sept. 11 attacks under a false flag. Another concedes al-Qaeda’s involvement — but insists the plot was known to a warmongering Bush administration. Other Truthers favour more exotic explanations — featuring missiles, remote-controlled airliners, the Mossad, mini-nukes, and even space weapons. What they all have in common, I’ve learned, is a hate-on for journalists who blithely dismiss them as “nutbars,” as I did a few weeks ago in a blog post about ex-Liberal candidate (and unapologetic Truther) Lesley Hughes.
Normally, I confess, these are the sort of correspondents I delete from my inbox without much guilt. As with all conspiracy theorists, debate is pointless. Since they have no chance of convincing me, nor I them, why waste my time parsing their arguments?
But something about the Truther e-mail I got aroused my interest.
For one thing, there was a lot of it. Which perhaps should not surprise me: As the Post’s Adrian Humphreys reported last week, 39% of Canadians either reject or doubt the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks.
Secondly, many of the messages — a majority, in fact — were lucid and coherent, well-written even. Some of the senders had letters after their names, and their e-mail addresses contained the domain names of recognizable universities. Conspiracy theorists, they may be. But they’re certainly not the subhuman weirdos who try to convince me the Holocaust never happened, nor the anti-social paranoiacs who send me weekly updates about their decades-long litigation campaign against their ex-landlords.
Thirdly, they have a point — something that hit home when I read this stinging comment in a message from Winnipeg-area writer Dallas Hansen: “Take a look at the mountain of evidence suggesting a black op … I’m sure you’re a smart guy, but posturing as though you’ve got all the answers to 9/11, and defaming those who question the explanation we’ve been given, is a little much.”
Sept. 11 wasn’t a “black op.” But Hansen is right that, like most mainstream journalists, I overplay my intellectual hand when it comes to 9/11 — and just about everything else besides.
I could lie to Mr. Hansen, and to my readers, and tell them that I’ve read the U.S. government’s 571-page 9/11 Commission Report, or Popular Mechanics magazine’s authoritative report on “Debunking the 9/11 Myths.” But the truth is that I haven’t. I never felt the need to because, on a purely instinctive level, I always believed the Truthers’ case was complete nonsense.
I don’t believe any group of people — let alone any group of people in government — could possibly pull off such a fantastically elaborate plot as 9/11, one involving hundreds, if not thousands of conspirators, without being definitively outed many times over. If 9/11 truly had been a U.S. government conspiracy, dozens of collaborators would have come forward by now for their multi-million dollar book deals; the mainstream media, always desperate for a scoop (trust me), would have broken the story open long ago; and respectable peer-reviewed journals would have published the work of professionals debunking the official account of the World Trade Center’s destruction.
Since none of that has happened, I have never bothered schooling myself in the minutiae of 911-ology — the microscopic examination of photos and videos, the comparison of melting points and mechanical properties of this or that construction material, the second-by-second timetable of U.S. Air Force activity on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. I have never done so because it is tedious and time-consuming.
This admission does not disqualify me from commentary on 9/11 — just as my lack of knowledge about astrophysics doesn’t disqualify me from treating the 1969 moon landing as historical fact. But it does mean I have to concede something morally important to the Truthers: We are discussing a subject that they have bothered to study, and which I (and you) haven’t.
This information imbalance is a problem that crops up whenever I find myself debating any sort of conspiracy theorist. For the ordinary fellow, the moon landing or the holocaust or 9/11 is just something he knows about from school and television. For the conspiracy theorist, it’s something he’s studied to death. His heterodoxy is central to his ultra-skeptical world view — perhaps even a defining feature of his human identity. So when you pair the former up against the latter in a one-on-one argument, it’s usually the obsessive oddball who has the upper hand.
Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman captured this frustration well in their outstanding 2000 book Denying History. Even actual Holocaust survivors, they noted, often get made to look like fools when they go up against hatemongers who’ve spent their whole lives trying to make nonsense of history: “Most Holocaust deniers are very knowledgeable about very specific aspects of the Holocaust — a gas chamber door that cannot lock, they temperature at which Zyklon-B evaporates, or the lack of metal grid over the peephole on a gas chamber — so that anyone who is not versed in these specifics cannot properly question and answer their claims.”
Truthers, with a few anti-Semitic exceptions, aren’t on the same moral plane as holocaust deniers — but their arguments tend to follow the same pattern: a succession of isolated, niggling details that, strung together a certain way, make a superficially plausible case for the “black op” thesis. In the past, when confronted with Truthers on a radio or television show, I’ve taken the coward’s way out — demurring that I wouldn’t “dignify” the Truthers’ claims with a response. The truth is that I can’t dignify their claims with a response.
In fact, I’ll go further: Most of us don’t even have the basic vocabulary to take on the Truthers. A few weeks back, I was at a party hosted by my aunt when one of my adult cousins casually said of 9/11, “I don’t buy the official story. If you ask me, it was an inside-outside job.” A few faces in the room looked to me, assuming that a veteran opinion journalist at a national newspaper could be counted upon to debunk this idea. But the best I could do was to sit there eating my almond mandelbrot, pretending I hadn’t heard the comment. Truth is, I don’t even know what an “inside-outside job” is.
How does a non-Truther reclaim his intellectual self-esteem amidst the Truther onslaught? The hard way: I’m going to slog through the 9/11 Commission Report — and maybe even some other texts besides. I don’t suppose this will earn me more than a draw in my arguments with Truthers. But at least I won’t have to pretend that I can’t hear them talking.
- simuvac's blog
- Login to post comments
Wow.
"I could lie to Mr. Hansen, and to my readers, and tell them that I’ve read the U.S. government’s 571-page 9/11 Commission Report, or Popular Mechanics magazine’s authoritative report on “Debunking the 9/11 Myths.” But the truth is that I haven’t. I never felt the need to because, on a purely instinctive level, I always believed the Truthers’ case was complete nonsense."
Incredulous Disbelief...
"I don’t believe any group of people — let alone any group of people in government — could possibly pull off such a fantastically elaborate plot as 9/11..."
-- Kay
Incredulous disbelief is NOT an argument.
argument from personal incredulity
"The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"I don’t believe any group of people — let alone any group of people in government — could possibly pull off such a fantastically elaborate plot as 9/11..."
-- Kay
Is he trying to say he doesn't believe 9/11 happened? Nobody could have pulled it off!
Incredibly hilarious article. Flouting ignorance of 9/11 without examination is pretty striking.
And for the writer of the article, they "pulled" all of this off:
"I would like to ask the National Post: is it a "conspiracy theory" that not one single person within the FAA, NORAD, FBI, CIA, etc was fired or reprimanded after the events of 9/11? Is it a "conspiracy theory" that those most responsible for preventing the attacks were promoted? It is a "conspiracy theory" that investigations into the 9/11 attacks were blocked by the Bush administration for more than a year, or that evidence was destroyed or is being withheld? National Post, were the 9/11 war games involving hijacked airliners on 9/11 as reported by credible news sources a "conspiracy theory"? Shouldn't this information be something that the National Post should be educating their readers about? Is it also a "conspiracy theory" that NORAD intercepts aircraft hundreds of times a year, but on 9/11 we are told... well actually we were told three contradictory stories by NORAD! So when NORAD tells us three contradictory stories in an attempt to explain why they couldn't intercept any planes on 9/11, is that a "conspiracy theory" too? Senator Mark Dayton said in testimony during a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing that NORAD officials "lied"."
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/10/national-post-911-skeptics-resu...
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog
SEND HIM A READING LIST
These statements may get the more intelligent of his readers to do some research:
"For one thing, there was a lot of it. Which perhaps should not surprise me: As the Post’s Adrian Humphreys reported last week, 39% of Canadians either reject or doubt the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks."
"Secondly, many of the messages — a majority, in fact — were lucid and coherent, well-written even. Some of the senders had letters after their names, and their e-mail addresses contained the domain names of recognizable universities. Conspiracy theorists, they may be. But they’re certainly not the subhuman weirdos who try to convince me the Holocaust never happened, nor the anti-social paranoiacs who send me weekly updates about their decades-long litigation campaign against their ex-landlords."
"I’m going to slog through the 9/11 Commission Report — and maybe even some other texts"
SEND HIM A READING LIST: jkay@nationalpost.com
Excellent idea Joe
I just sent him an email recommending a few DRG books, the Richard Gage video presentation and a few video documentaries.
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow
Reading List
I have a list of articles here, although I should update it:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-truth-essential-reading.html
The critical articles I would most recommend are:
David Ray Griffin
Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93: The 9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20GR200...
Steven Jones
Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_...
Jim Hoffman
Review of 'A New Standard for Deception: The NIST WTC Report', a Presentation by Kevin Ryan
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index_0.98.html
Forensic Metallurgy: Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
911Truth.org, The top 40: Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11th, 2001
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
I return to these articles frequently and I find them useful.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog
A-hole?
I'd say he is being honest, maybe for the first time, something a lot of journalists don't like to do. He is admitting publicly his opinion is based on nothing and "says" he is going to read up on it. He also threw a few seemingly genuine compliments our way. I don't think we should call people who say they are willing to research this stuff, "a-holes." If, in fact, he actually reads the 9/11 Commission Report, which I hope he does, how many pages into it before he realizes we're right? Can't wait until he gets to the part where the Commissioners say the financing of the hijackers was of little significance. He will certainly go back and re-read letters people have written. If he's a fast reader, he might end up being a truther in three months. He is well on his way, because he is already starting to question his assumptions.
I think this is a good article to forward to local journalists.
Something tells me
Jonathan Kay will never come around to 9/11 Truth. The National Post is Canada's version of the Washington Times; so Kay would have to oppose the most foundational myth on which the neocon empire is built. Not gonna happen.
More to the point, though, I would say he's an a-hole because of the arrogance with which he admits he hasn't done any research into 9/11 AND he doesn't have to! Read it again. He's not opening up about some newfound love of journalistic integrity. He's saying 9/11 Truth is so profoundly ridiculous on its surface that he doesn't have to do any reading before he calls us crazy.
I'd say that's the very definition of an a-hole.
Simuvac.
I see your point, but I also see Peacenik's point. (And Phoenix's point.)
I changed the headline of the blog entry to something that I hope is a little more accurate, and a little less ad hominem. Although Mr. Kay's columns on 9/11 Truth do indeed resemble scatalogical product, his real sin appears to be that he is ignorant. (I do fully understand how you could perceive Kay as an a-hole.)
But he is studiously ignorant. Vastly ignorant. Breathtakingly devoid of the tiniest grasp of a subject which he has chosen to take a dump on, (in the form of written opinion), at his widely disseminated public soapbox.
How sad to be such a loose cannon.
(Simuvac, this is nothing against you, I should have though this over a little more.)
Thanks for changing the title, Rep.
While Mr. Kay may never come around and honestly look at the facts, I think we should always take the high road and give our adversaries the benefit of the doubt when they admit their ignorance.
Let's see where this goes.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Ditto!
...and ditto!
No problem
I guess I just don't share the optimism of others here that Mr. Kay will soon be publishing a mea culpa. ;-)
Me neither
Once he realizes that his career is finished if he joins us, his open minded exploration of the facts will become moot.
The best we can hope for is that he becomes a closet truther.
Good on him.
I welcome his honesty as well. And what's more, unlike most OCT supporters, he doesn't let his arrogance get in the way of an open mind.
Let's hope he is able to keep an open mind and maybe even see things from a different point of view.
Your honor, the prosecution rests.
A while back I warned that soon there woud be cracks into some elements of the corporate media, here and there, regarding the FACTS behind 9/11, and when this happens, MANY journalists would be creating unique ways to get "out of" their early and ignorant positions on 9/11.
And I also asked then, and I openly re-ask now, that we be very keen to these "breakthroughs" and not jam these types up too badly. Act like we do in the streets...be sensitive to our audience.
And to me, this is a quintessential example of which I speak...creative break throughs into 9/11 TRUTH! So, lets be cool about this.
And, if after reading this, and, if I wanted to write him in a simple response, I would frame it with the fourth estate being on trial for NOT doing its job for well over a dozen years.
After introducing this writing as exhibit #1, I woud simply state to the judge:
Your honor, in the charges that the corporate media has failed to uphold its responsibility to uphold the "fourth estate" and seek the truth and facts wherever they may lead in support of our FIRST amendment rights being placed FIRST for very good reason, the reason being that without the free press, none of our elements of democracy and self governance will actually work, THE PROSECUTION RESTS.
Love, Peace and Progress [and throw in some patience here and there...]
Robin Hordon
Noticed This Early In The Article (No Accident?)
"Other Truthers favour more exotic explanations — featuring missiles, ... mini-nukes, and even space weapons."
The MSM strategy is to highlight hoaxes
The MSM strategy is to highlight hoaxes, theories and debatable claims, misleadingly frame issues, and ignore incontrovertible facts. For example, it is incontrovertible that NORAD changed its timeline three times and no one has ever been reprimanded for the 9/11 attacks.
They won't touch issues like the 9/11 Wargames, promotions, NORAD lies, NORAD, and 9/11 report omissions, etc.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog
The Best Revenge
The best response to this attack upon our cause is to re-double our efforts to raise awareness.
More DVD distribution, more flyer distribution, more freeway blogging.
These and other methods are a proven success.
Well don't dismiss him, even a-holes can become enlightened...
"How does a non-Truther reclaim his intellectual self-esteem amidst the Truther onslaught? The hard way: I’m going to slog through the 9/11 Commission Report — and maybe even some other texts besides. I don’t suppose this will earn me more than a draw in my arguments with Truthers. But at least I won’t have to pretend that I can’t hear them talking."
This sounds like an invitation to give him a REASON to learn, against his previous "better judgement". I think he is admitting, to what may be a disbelieving readership, that he has reason to take pause and reconsider his snap judgements.
So I agree, sending him reading lists is a good idea. I think John Gold's "The Facts Speak For Themselves"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17949 is as good a starting point as any.
Perhaps a look at the NIST Building 7 Report
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
and the Architects and Engineers for 911Truth Rebuttal
"Aug 29, 2008 Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze Failings of NIST's WTC 7 Final Report"
http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3
would offer more of the intelligent discourse he seeks, to lend credibility to his opinion-in-progress, so he can maintain the respect of his audience (and possibly gain supporters).
Don't forget, in his world, he is sticking his neck out a bit. I think it is important to realize that many people live different lives than we do, and may not have been exposed to ideas that are long familiar to us., or they may not see them initially as being in the realm of possibility due to how they first heard of the concepts. So when someone appears to show interest in the cause, even as a latecomer, we should not dismiss them on their former viewpoint, but welcome them and support their learning experience and potential to become an ally for the greater good. Especially someone in media. Give him information and let him run with it. If he can't fathom it, we'll know soon enough. But we are trying to gain allies, not alienate people.
Mr. Kay gives us an opening, so let's take it
and try to work with him. It can't hurt, right?
Here's what I emailed him earlier:
Mr. Kay -
I hope that you and yours are well.
It takes courage to publicly admit ignorance on a subject as important as the events of 9/11/01.
Let me suggest that you read Dr. David Ray Griffin's excellent book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Olive Branch Press, 2004), along with The 9/11 Commission Report.
As a journalist you may also wish to read Dr. Griffin's 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Interlink Publ. 2008). His most recent book, New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-up and the Exposé (Arris 10/2008), is probably his best yet, but requires some familiarity with the subject.
For a less taxing introduction to the subject, you could start by watching the excellent film, 9/11: Press For Truth.
This is a very difficult and troubling area of investigation, please allow your intellectual curiosity to roam where it will and do not be afraid of where it may lead you, there are millions of people all over the world that will understand and support the journey you are about to take.
I have studied economics and international relations for over 25 years and have looked very closely at the events of 9/11/01 and would be happy to engage you in a friendly dialogue on the subject if you are interested.
Regards,
John W. Wright
California, USA
It's too easy just to condemn someone and walk away, or cast aspersions on his character. Why not reach out and engage him as we try to do with the general public?
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
And here's what I emailed him...
Dear M. Kay,
Thank-you for participating in society’s current hot-potato debate over finding out what actually happened on September 11th 2001.
Often, it’s the journalists who are the most resistant to review their position on this issue, since they have already invested much of their image and credibility into defending, against ever increasing odds of success, the governments official “Al-Qaeda did it” version of the events. Contemplating that they could have been defending and covering-up the criminal perpetrators for the last 7 years would imply a painful narcissist wounding of one’s own image of one-self that most media people back away from as if their life depended on it (sometimes, it seems, their livelihood does!).
As John W Wright said – “It takes courage (for a journalist) to publicly admit ignorance on a subject as important as the events of 9/11/01” (www.911blogger.com/node/18298#comment-199744 )and I commend you for that. I remember well known international journalist Guilietto Chiesa saying that he had interviewed several hundred highest class international journalists about the hard evidence they could muster concerning the official (reuters/CIA/MI6/StateDepartment)account of the events – and, strangely enough, there was ZILCH. This is what motivated Chiesa to bring out the Italian-produced documentary named ”ZERO” with the stated goal of creating a political awareness of the faulty official investigation into the events by the 9/11 Commission. (The movie was well received by 30 million Russian TV viewers, but US networks are not yet fighting to enlighten us on these issues.)
In the mean time, Politicians who DO take up this issue are gaining more and more public support: see here the reception given to opposition Democrat leader Yukihisa Fujita in the Japanese Diet last week, Oct 22 http://www.911video.de/news/231008 (posted Oct 26, Berlin).
Architect Richard Gage is also steadily helping more and more European politicians and intellectuals to understand the physics of how the buildings in New-York city were destroyed: see his 3 minute intro: www.youtube.com/watch?v=isTGuaaln9A to the new 2 hour film available at the site www.AE911Truth.org which regroups more than 500 serious independent architects and several thousand supporters.
We are happy that you managing to open up more and more to these facts M. Kay, (see also: www.911blogger.com/node/17949 "The facts speak for themselves" )
Best regards,
Dr Eric Beeth
Av de l'Armee 127 (= Legerlaan)
1040 Bruxelles / Brussel
Metro: "Thieffry" (ligne 1A dir. Hermann de Broux)
www.patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Beeth
www.vigli.org/news.htm
"unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man." (Harold Pinter)
Common Arguments
It seems that those who do not share the beliefs of the 9/11 Truth Movement have the same set of arguments; personal incredulity, someone would have talked, George Bush is to incompotent etc.
Jonathon Kay writes,
"I don’t believe any group of people — let alone any group of people in government — could possibly pull off such a fantastically elaborate plot as 9/11, one involving hundreds, if not thousands of conspirators, without being definitively outed many times over. If 9/11 truly had been a U.S. government conspiracy, dozens of collaborators would have come forward by now for their multi-million dollar book deals..."
Michael Shermer makes this argument frequently. If it was an inside job why doesn't someone show up on Larry King Live and reveal the plot. It seems lost on them that to expose the 9/11 plot is tantamount to confessing to murder. Most people don't want to end up in front of the firing squad. It seems strange that the debunkers think it is natural for people to confess to murder.
What did the former CIA director say?
“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
This is why people like Larry King aren't even ALLOWED to go near 9/11 truth.
We could only dream of such an opportunity.
Hello all Truthers,
Upon reading this article, I was struck by the sincerity of it. A mainstream journalist admitted he was ignorant on the subject, but that he was committed to researching it. It just doesn't happen - and then it does - and so many criticize the man. This is what we are all trying to do, and we've done it! Why can't we all see this as a significant victory? What everyone needs to do right now is thank him. I just emailed him and then called his office. We spoke for a couple of minutes. He thanked me for the call and told me that he would be researching and writing more on the issue. He was appreciative, kind and genuinely enagaged in the conversation.
We must always refrain from attacks. They will never win out, but only provide people with another reason to ignore us.
This is huge and must be handled properly.
Cheers,
Your Canadian Friend.
Civil Informationing
I am glad to see that a great deal of us are making sane and rational appeals to journalists natural curiosity. I think a great deal of what turns people off to the truth movement is that we tend to label journalists as "gatekeepers" or "ignorant". I was ignorant once, I was once a skeptic. Even when presented with gobs of evidence it took a long while for me to swallow my pride and admit that I might be wrong and do some research.
Perhaps I am preaching to the choir here, but swallowing some of our pride as sole bearers of "Truth" and engaging people on a polite and encouraging level will go a long way towards reaching skeptics than any name calling or shouting will.
We will have to admit, that a lot of 9/11 Truthers are not the most rational, approachable people, and tend to get very excited and send long tirades or rants burying people in details. I would be skeptical too if this was the only thing I saw, and I think it is unfortunate that that loudest among us are heard the most often. But it looks like the calm and articulate people are getting through to him, and I applaud him for recognizing their comments.
I am glad to see this journalist admit he needs to know more, no matter how much he may degrade the 9/11 truth movement. I heartily encourage him to search for the truth, and for everyone to find the patience and humility to remember that we are all still learning.
Douchebag of the Year?
Or are we supposed to cut him slack because even as he repeatedly libels us he promises to go find some evidence later to make his libel more legitimate?
Why are these people employed to give opinions?
It truly is boggling. This article and its admissions should be grounds for dismissal from any journal worth its subscription price.
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
Grounds For Dismissal
National Post Editors:
Your columnist Jonathan Kay admits repeatedly that he is not qualified to comment on the matters he discusses, and yet he continues to do so out of complete and utter ignorance. Further, having taken a side in a debate of global significance, he slanders the opposing side with ad hominem assaults not worthy of a schoolyard.
Why is this character employed to shape your readers' opinions? Is there no shame to be found at the Post?
Examples:
"...I’ve learned, is a hate-on for journalists who blithely dismiss them as “nutbars,” as I did a few weeks ago..."
Simply libel.
"Since they have no chance of convincing me, nor I them, why waste my time parsing their arguments?"
Admission that he is closed minded and impervious to argument.
"But they’re certainly not the subhuman weirdos who try to convince me the Holocaust never happened, nor the anti-social paranoiacs who send me weekly updates about their decades-long litigation campaign..."
This is guilt by association (in his mind anyway), which seeks to link a discussion of 9/11 with Holocaust deniers and other disreputable people for no reason other than to smear.
" I never felt the need to [study the facts] because, on a purely instinctive level, I always believed the Truthers’ case was complete nonsense."
This is a defense of ignorance, and that anti-intellectualism is a legitimate position. This is astounding that a professional journalist would plead ignorance, and yet be published and taken seriously for his views.
"...could possibly pull off such a fantastically elaborate plot as 9/11, one involving hundreds, if not thousands of conspirators..."
Here he's fantasizing about what would have happened in his own mind, his own conspiracy theory designed to sound implausible. Why is it that if it was solely "Al Qaeda" it only took 19 people, but if members of the government were complicit it suddenly needs "thousands?"
Where is the balance, the opposing view? Why can't an alternative view, admittedly held by about 39% of Canadians even be presented honestly in your paper?
"This admission does not disqualify me from commentary on 9/11..."
It certainly should if any kind of journalistic standards carried the day.
"We are discussing a subject that they have bothered to study, and which I (and you) haven’t."
As per his own admission, please have someone on staff investigate the little matter of "foreign governments" providing assistance to the alleged hijackers. These "foreign governments" involvement were openly admitted in the US Senate on October 28, 2003, and by US Senator Bob Graham (D/FL) on PBS NewsHour December 11th, 2002.
Further, have Mr. Kay explain why covering up the involvement of "foreign governments" in the 9/11 attacks on America is not technically "treason", which is Constitutionally defined as "aid and comfort" to an "enemy" which attacks the nation.
Good luck with that little lesson, and with getting coherent logic out of your stuffed shirt imbecile.
If Kay had a shred of integrity he'd resign immediately in shame.
These are matters of war and peace, life and death, democracy and creeping fascism.
______________________________________________
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
How...
Much of this is in Popular Mechanics' book or in the 9/11 Report for that matter?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
My Email To Mr. Kay
Dear Mr, Kay,
Greetings from the State of Oregon. I found your most recent column via the website, 911blogger.com.
I wish I could help to explain what an "inside-outside job" is, but I'm afraid that your cousin has come up with a new one there. To cut to the chase, I'm one of those people who have spent thousands of hours poring over the evidence, the cover-ups and the speculations about the tragic events of 9/11/01. I'm not a published author on the matter, but I am what Gov. Sarah Palin disparagingly calls a "community organizer". I've hosted and attended many a seminar, conference or movie presentation on 9/11. So much for the C.V. Now on to the meat of what I'm hoping to pass along feeling that you may have just expressed that you are allowing the doors of your perception to be more fully opened.
In my considered view, the 9/11 Commission report is a remarkable document in that it was essentially written by Philip Zelikow, a close associate of Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, and someone who was at the Commission's initiation presented to the American public as a "neutral expert". That was hardly the truth. Researchers soon debunked this myth. Helpfully, one even discovered that in a candid moment in 1999 while he was employed in academia Zelikow wrote that his role in life was "the creation of public mythologies". (Unhelpfully, that passage in Zelikow's Wikipedia page has been censored). What Zelikow wrote should be a breeze for you to read. Intentionally, it would seem, the 9/11 Commission Report has been written as a novel, or, as a good "who-dun-it?" detective story. But surely it has not been written as a serious investigation report. Before his untimely passing, Prof. Benjamin DeMott (U. Mass-Amherst) wrote an excoriating criticism of the Report in Harper's Magazine entitled "Whitewash as Public Service". Dr. David Ray Griffin has written a comprehensive analysis of the flaws and disinformation incorporated in the Commission report in his book "9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions".
Rather than take up more of your time, I'll close by simply saying that I find it quite odd that the 9/11 Commission Report utterly fails to state that WTC 7, a 47 story building collapsed in the late afternoon of 9/11/01. That sort of glaring omission seems to beg the question: what else is Mr. Zelikow attempting to hide from his readers? It's been said that "Orwell's '1984' was written as a warning, not a guide." Did Zelikow read Orwell incorrectly?
Sincerely, Raymond Duray