woensdag 8 oktober 2008

11 september 2001 (45)


Laatst vroeg iemand mij of mijn scepsis over de officiele complottheorie van 11 september 2001 waarbij 19 Arabieren etc, niet irrationeel was. Ik probeerde hem uit te leggen dat juist het geloof in de versie van de Amerikaanse politici tamelijk irrationeel was. Het irrationalisme is voor mij de voornaamste reden geweest om nauwkeurig te luisteren naar de critici van die officiele versie. Mijn scepsis begon eigenlijk al op de eerste dag toen ik hoorde dat op straat bij de Twin Towers een paspoort was gevonden van een van de vermeende kapers. Een journalistiek instinct zei me dat dit onzin was, propaganda, het was namelijk fysiek omnmogelijk dat het daar gevonden was. Door de jaren heen heb ik de verdedigers van de officiele versie steeds emotioneler en fanatieker zien worden zodra iemand met feiten de officiele versie weerlegde. Nog opmerkelijker is dat hun kritiek vaak flinterdun is, en regelmatig getuigt van onwetendheid. Daarom vond ik het belangrijk om het volgende op deze website te zetten:


'The Ultimate 9/11 ''Truth'' Showdown
David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi
Global Research, October 7, 2008
AlterNet.org

A poll of 17 countries that came out September of this year revealed that majorities in only nine of them "believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States." A Zogby poll from 2006 found that in America, 42% of respondents believed the US government and 9/11 Commission "covered up" the events of 9/11. It's safe to say that at least tens of millions of Americans don't believe anything close to the official account offered by the 9/11 Commission, and that much of the outside world remains skeptical.
Over the years, AlterNet has run dozens of stories, mostly critical, of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Matt Taibbi has taken on the 9/11 Truth Movement head on in a series of articles, and most recently in his new book, The Great Derangement.
In April, I asked Taibbi if he would be interested in interviewing David Ray Griffin, a leading member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University and author of seven of books on 9/11, about his recent book, 9/11 Contradictions. After months of back and forths between them and some editorial delays, I'm pleased to share their written exchange -- all 24,000 words of it. What we have here are the preeminent writers on both sides of the 9/11 Truth argument; a one-of-a-kind debate. Because the questions and responses are quite long, I've woven them together in order. Enjoy. -- Jan Frel, AlterNet Senior Editor.
1. Matt Taibbi (May 16, 2008): In your first chapter, you seem to imply -- well, you not only imply, you come out and say it -- that you think the real reason George W. Bush didn't hurry to finish his reading of My Pet Goat might have been that "the Secret Service had no real fear of an attack." In other words, they knew the plan in advance, and the plan didn't involve an attempt on Bush's life, hence "no real fear." My question is this: if they knew about this whole thing in advance, why didn't they plan to make Bush look a little less like a paralyzed yutz at the moment of truth? If the purpose of the entire exercise was propaganda, wasn't it counterproductive to have the intrepid leader sitting there frozen with panicked indecision, a kid's book about goats in his hands, at the critical moment of his presidency? What possible benefit could that have served the conspirators?
David Ray Griffin responds (June 12, 2008): Matt, I appreciate this opportunity provided by you and AlterNet to respond to questions about my writings on 9/11, especially my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions, which is addressed specifically to journalists (as well as Congress).
Before responding to your first question, however, I need to address a theme that is implicit throughout your questions. I refer to your claim, which you have spelled out in previous writings, that those who believe 9/11 was an inside job must, to make this claim credible, present a complete theory as to how this operation was carried out.
You made this claim in the article in which you referred to "9/11 conspiracy theorists" as "idiots." They must be idiots, you said, because "9/11 conspiracy is so shamefully stupid." Saying that you could not give all your reasons for this claim, you wrote: "I'll have to be content with just one point: 9/11 Truth is the lowest form of conspiracy theory, because it doesn't offer an affirmative theory of the crime." By "an affirmative theory," you meant a "concrete theory of what happened, who ordered what and when they ordered it, and why." In the absence of such a theory, you went on to claim, "all the rest," including the "alleged scientific impossibilities," is "bosh and bunkum."
Recognizing that members of the 9/11 truth movement will argue that you are "ignoring the mountains of scientific evidence proving that the Towers could not have collapsed as a result of the plane crashes alone," you replied: "[Y]ou're right. I am ignoring it. You idiots. Even if it were not the rank steaming bullshit my few scientist friends assure me that it is, none of that stuff would prove anything."
Your argument here has two problems (aside from your self-contradictory statement that scientifically disproving the official account of how the Towers fell would prove nothing). First, like most people who defend the official account of 9/11, you use the term "conspiracy theorist" in a one-sided way, applying it only to people who reject the official account of 9/11. But that account is itself a conspiracy theory -- indeed, the original 9/11 conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy is simply an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. One holds a conspiracy theory about some event (such as a bank robbery or a corporation defrauding its stockholders) if one believes that it resulted from such an agreement. A conspiracy theorist is simply someone who accepts such a theory.
According to the Bush-Cheney administration, the 9/11 attacks resulted from a conspiracy between Osama bin Laden and various members of al-Qaeda, including the 19 men accused of hijacking the airliners. This official account is, therefore, a conspiracy theory. (This is not a new point: I made it in my first book on 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor. I even made it in the title of my 2007 book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. ) Accordingly, insofar as you accept this official account, you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. And yet you evidently do not consider yourself an idiot. Rather, you save that description, along with the term "conspiracy theorist," for those who reject the official conspiracy theory.
Looking aside from your selective name-calling, your one-sided use of the term would not be so bad except that it leads you to be one-sided in the demands you make: While demanding that rejecters of the official theory must provide an account of what happened that is both self-consistent and based on hard evidence, you do not seem concerned whether the official theory exemplifies those virtues. (I will illustrate this point in my responses to some of your other questions.)
In addition to this one-sidedness, there is a second problem with your claim that anyone challenging a theory must have a complete alternative theory: It is false. There are several ways to challenge a theory. You can cast doubt on it by showing that its alleged evidence does not stand up to scrutiny. You can show that a theory is probably false by pointing to evidence that apparently contradicts it. You can positively disprove a theory by providing evidence showing that it cannot possibly be true. The 9/11 truth movement has done all three with regard to the official account.
To make clearer why your claim is unreasonable, I'll use a method that you like to employ: I'll make up a story.
You and your best friend entered a contest and, on the basis of something you considered unfair, he won the rather sizable cash prize. A week later, he is found dead, killed by an arrow. Although you are heartbroken, you are arrested and charged with his murder.
The police claim that, being angry because you felt he had cheated you out of money and glory, you used a crossbow to shoot him from the roof of a nearby building. You hire an attorney to defend you, even though you are confident that, since the charge is false, the police could not possibly have any evidence against you.
At the trial, however, the prosecutor plays a recording on which your voice is heard threatening to kill your friend. He plays a video clip showing you going into the building carrying a case big enough to hold a disassembled crossbow. He presents a water bottle with your finger prints on it that was found on the roof.
In defending you, your attorney, having pointed out that the water bottle could have been planted, then argues that, since you did not make that call and never went into that building, the police must have fabricated evidence by using digital (voice and video) morphing technology. When the prosecutor rolls his eyes, your attorney cites William Arkin's 1999 Washington Post article, "When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing," which points out that voice morphing, like photo and video manipulation, is now good enough to fool anyone. With regard to why the police would have tried to frame you, your attorney suggests that the FBI may have asked the local police to put you away because of critical things you had written about the White House.
The prosecutor, smiling knowingly to the judge, says: "Oh my, a conspiracy theory." He then adds that, even if your attorney's speculations were true, which he doubted, it wouldn't matter: Your attorney could prove your innocence only by providing a complete and plausible account of the alleged conspiracy: Who ordered the frame-up and when, who carried it out, and how and where they did this. Your attorney replies that this is preposterous: You would not possibly have the resources and connections to do this.
In any case, your attorney says, he has scientific proof that the police's theory is false: A forensic lab has shown that the arrow that killed your friend could not possibly have flown the distance from the building's roof to the location where your friend was killed. He then asks the judged to dismiss all charges.
The judge, however, says that he's inclined to agree with the prosecution, especially if you are charging the government with engaging in a conspiracy: You need to provide a complete account of this alleged conspiracy. Not only that, the judge says, wickedly quoting a passage from one of your own writings: "In the real world you have to have positive proof of involvement to have a believable conspiracy theory." You must, he says, provide positive proof that the FBI and police conspired to frame you.
Your attorney protests, saying that, in spite of the fact that his client had articulated this requirement, it is absurd. The defense has done all it needs to do. Besides showing how all the evidence against the defendant could have been manufactured, it has shown that the government's theory is scientifically impossible.
The prosecutor objects, saying that the impossibility is merely alleged: He has some scientist friends who believe that the arrow could easily have traveled the distance in question.
The judge convicts you of murder.
Having shown you, I hope, that your demand for a complete theory, with positive proof, is unreasonable, I turn to your first question: "[If the Secret Service] knew about this whole thing in advance, why didn't they plan to make Bush look a little less like a paralyzed yutz at the moment of truth?" That's a good question, one that I myself asked near the end of The New Pearl Harbor, in a section entitled "Possible Problems for a Complicity Theory." Perhaps anticipating that you would come along, I pointed out that critics of the revisionist theory of 9/11 may well make the following claim:
[T]hese revisionists must do more than show that the official account is implausible. They must also present an alternative account of what happened that incorporates all the relevant facts now available in a plausible way. Furthermore, these counter-critics could continue, insofar as an alternative account is already contained, at least implicitly, in the writings of the revisionists, it could be subjected to a great number of rhetorical questions, to which easy answers do not appear to be at hand.'



Voor een gesproken interview met David Ray Griffin, zie: http://www.stanvanhoucke.net/audioblog/pivot/entry.php?id=11#body

10 opmerkingen:

yelamdenu zei

Kijk, de consensus tekent zich af.
De meest irrationele complottheorie rond 9/11 is die van het Witte Huis. Dat dit een false-flag operatie was, daar twijfel ik geen moment aan. Al lag ik op m'n sterfbed.

Anoniem zei

In dit kader is het volgende filmpje van Al-Jazeera heerlijk om te bekijken. We kunnen door de tranen ook nog een beetje lachen.

Max Keiser: "Bankenfailliet is controlled demolition"

http://www.nujij.nl/max-keiser-bankenfailliet-is-controlled-demolition.3669899.lynkx

Anoniem zei

Ik zie de laatste jaren steeds duidelijker de grote rol van de media bij heel dit gebeuren, voor mij is in de eerste plaats 911 tv-fakery.

In januari 2000 zei Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News, over het gebruik van de technieken voor tv-fakery: “I certainly agree it’s potentially subject to abuse.”

He noted that advances in computer-generated techniques had made things like missiles hitting Baghdad and airplanes crashing look so real that it was incumbent on networks to underscore that these were not real images.

http://blogger.webcoat.net/2008/09/cbs-in-2000-verdeeld-over-gebruik-van-tv-fakery/

Na het bestuderen van de vele beelden die ons die dag werden getoond wordt dit ook overtuigend aangetoond.

Jim Fetzer geeft ondermeer deze 5 hoofdargumenten voor de tv-fakery:

1. de vliegsnelheid afgeleid van de beelden is onmogelijk
2. de manier waarop het vliegtuig het gebouw binnenvliegt is onmogelijk
3. de natuurwetten worden overtreden door het vliegtuig bij de impact
4. de inslagen en de explosies worden op dat moment niet door vliegtuigen veroorzaakt
5. op andere punten blijken de verklaringen van de videomakers verzinsels te zijn en onmogelijkheden te bevatten

http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html

yelamdenu zei

Ko, dit is echt flauwekul.
http://zaplog.nl/zaplog/article/to_plane_or_not_to_plane

Anoniem zei

Wat jij bestempelt als flauwekul zie ik als volkomen logisch yelamdenu.

Ik vind me dan ook ondermee in het volgende:

http://www.911closeup.com/

Daarnaast heb ik ondermeer de talloze docu's bekeken met een analyse van de beelden van die dag, naast de vele open dialogen die daarover hebben plaatsgevonden.

September Clues
911 Amateur
911 Octopus
911 Flatline
911 Taboo
Foxed Out
The Head of the Snake
Cartoon flight 175
2001 - A fake Odyssey

enzovoort...

Dit naast mijn gezonde verstand die al veel en veel langer de vraagtekens had bij de rol van de brainwash media op 911. Door de analyses meer en meer helder.

911 was primair een Media Job.

Anoniem zei

Lees ook het verslag van de oorspronkelijke "no-planers"...

Morgan Reynolds - No More Games

yelamdenu zei

Ko, de "WTC-no-planes" theorie is een CIA psy-op om de alternatieven voor de officiële complottheorie van het Witte Huis in diskrediet te brengen.
Het is vakkundig weerlegd op deze site:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

Anoniem zei

Tja het spijt me yelamdenu, maar als mij iets voorkomt als een psy-op dan is het toch wel de tv-fakery van 911.

Dat de CIA belang zou hebben bij het aantonen van tv-fakery lijkt me toch ook wel een zeer vreemde gedachtegang... :)

Ik kan me aan de andere kant goed voorstellen dat binne4n de zogenaamde "truth-beweging" men er alles aan doet om de hele psy-op van de media te ridiculiseren in het belang van dat Brainwash Apparaat. Zulk soort bewegingen zijn altijd al geinfiltreerd geweest door agenten. Bij die 911 truth-beweging is dat net zo.

Websites die de tv-fakery zo krampachtig proberen te weerleggen met zogenaamd gevonden vliegtuigonderdelen of nep amateurbeelden ken ik wel, maar haalt geen enkel feit van de tv-fakery onderuit. Die zijn er namelijk te over verzameld.

yelamdenu zei

Dat de CIA belang zou hebben bij het aantonen van tv-fakery lijkt me toch ook wel een zeer vreemde gedachtegang... :)

Waarom? "Verdeel en heers" heet dat. Maak de legitieme kritiek op de officiële complottheorie belachelijk met vergezochte, bizarre claims. Zo worden ook de valide bezwaren tegen de officiële complottheorie als minder waarachtig gezien, door "guilt by association".

Hier en hier worden die ideeën vakkundig weerlegd.

Daar wil ik aan toevoegen dat die vliegtuigen, of ze er nou waren of niet, verder weinig relevant zijn voor 9/11. Het is verspilling van energie om daar al te veel over te gaan bakkeleien. Het feit dat 9/11 een false flag operatie was wordt duidelijk uit WTC1,2 en 7 die nooit hadden kunnen neergaan op de manier die we hebben gezien zonder explosieven/thermaat/wat dan ook. Dan is ernog de NORAD "standdown", stof genoeg.

Anoniem zei

""Verdeel en heers" heet dat."

Het lijkt me een bizarre constatering als je de focus die op de nepbeelden van 911 wordt gelegd toeschrijft aan een CIA. Te meer wanneer je je in die beelden verdiept je tot de constatering komt dat het inderdaad zo is. Maar ja dat had iedereen op de dag zelf kunnen ervaren, hetzij onmiddellijk, hetzij later beseffend.

Dat die zogenaamde weerleggingen een psy-op zijn dat kan ik dan weer wel weer aannemen.

Het relevante hieraan is dat het grote publiek beseft dat de commerciële brainwash media een veel gevaarlijker wapen is dan velen denken.

Peter Flik en Chuck Berry-Promised Land

mijn unieke collega Peter Flik, die de vrijzinnig protestantse radio omroep de VPRO maakte is niet meer. ik koester duizenden herinneringen ...