The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
- For Cockburn's cockeyed column, go to:David Ray Griffin's Response to Cockburn
The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory:
A Reply to Alexander Cockburn
Alexander Cockburn’s “US: The Conspiracy That Wasn’t,” which is an attack on the 9/11 truth movement, is faulty in virtually every respect.He calls me one of the movement’s “high priests,” as if it were a religious movement, rather than a fact-based movement that involves scientists, engineers, pilots, war veterans, politicians, philosophers, former air traffic controllers, former defense ministers, and former CIA analysts.1He calls us “conspiracists,” ignoring the fact that in defending the government’s account, he is defending the original 9/11 conspiracy theory.In claiming that the Bush administration and the military are too incompetent to have organized the 9/11 attacks, he gives an argument that could equally well be used to prove that they could not have organized the military assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq.In claiming that bin Laden took credit for the attacks, Cockburn appears not to be aware that in the video on which this claim is primarily based, the man playing Osama bin Laden is heavier and darker than the bin Laden of all undoubtedly authentic videos,2 or that the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorist” page on bin Laden does not mention 9/11---because, an FBI spokesman explained, “the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” 3Although Cockburn says that members of our movement are “immune to reality check,” he endorses the official theory of the collapses of the Twin Towers, which can be held only by ignoring an enormous number of facts.He says the towers were poorly built, whereas in reality they were built to withstand virtually any eventuality, including being hit by large airliners.He says the towers collapsed because of being struck by planes loaded with jet fuel, but WTC 7, which was not struck by a plane, also collapsed.In rejecting the claim that explosives had been planted, Cockburn ignores the fact that 118 members of the Fire Department gave testimony indicating that explosives had gone off.4 (I quoted 31 of these, along with journalists and WTC employees, in an essay entitled “Explosive Testimony. 5)The official theory about these buildings, which Cockburn defends, is contradicted by all prior history, in which total collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been caused by externally caused damage plus fire, even when the fires were much bigger and lasted much longer.The idea that explosives were used is further strengthened by the many features of the collapses:1. They were symmetrical, straight-down collapses, meaning that all 287 columns in each of the towers (47 massive core columns and 240 perimeter columns) and all 81 columns in WTC 7 had to collapse simultaneously. To believe that this could have been caused by fire, which was not spread evenly throughout any of the buildings, is to believe in a miracle.2. The collapses were total, with each skyscraper collapsing into a pile of rubble only a few stories high. Accordingly, each of the steel columns had to be sliced into many pieces---which is what explosives do in controlled implosions.3. Virtually all of the concrete and furniture was pulverized into extremely fine dust particles (which created huge dust clouds). Fire plus gravity would not have provided nearly enough energy to do this.4. At the beginning of the collapse of each of the Twin Towers, which started near the top, steel beams were ejected out horizontally as far as 600 feet. Gravitational energy, which is vertical, cannot begin to explain these massive horizontal ejections. (In his companion essay, “Conspiracy Disproved,” Cockburn suggests, incredibly, that nothing was ejected other than “puffs of smoke.” He also seems unaware that signs of explosions occurred near the impact point, not simply 20 to 60 floors lower, and falsely assumes that the timing of the explosions would have to be determined beforehand.)5. All three buildings came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, were providing no resistance to the upper floors. Cockburn says: “There is not the slightest need to postulate pre-placed explosive charges to explain why the towers collapsed at near free-fall speeds.” But that claim violates basic laws of physics.5. For many weeks afterwards, pools of molten metal were found under each building. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,540°C, whereas the fires could not have been over 1000°C. 6In “Conspiracy Disproved,” Cockburn endorses the report put out by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). But this report by this Bush administration agency is completely unscientific, announcing conclusions that radically contradict the data provided in its supporting volumes. 7Although I have focused here on the World Trade Center, there is strong evidence against every other dimension of the official conspiracy theory, which I have presented in The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. In the latter book, I showed that the Commission’s report contains at least 115 lies of omission and distortion.
Cockburn appears to be unwilling to look at such evidence because he is convinced that the effort to show 9/11 to have been an inside job is a distraction from really important matters. However, if 9/11 was indeed an inside job, then what could be more important than exposing this fact? The idea that America was attacked by foreign terrorists on 9/11 has been used to justify the war in Iraq and virtually every other way in which the United States has made the world an uglier, more dangerous place since 9/11.
It has also been used to distract attention from the problem of global warming, which is the really serious threat to human civilization. The official conspiracy theory about 9/11, in other words, is the true distraction.-------------------David Ray Griffin has published 30 books, most recently 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, co-edited with Peter Dale Scott (Olive Branch, Northampton, Mass., 2006).
See Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/111 Truth, and Patriots Question 9/11 (all online).
3 See “Fake bin Laden Video” (online).
3 Ed Haas, “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’” Muckraker Report (online), June 6, 2006.
4 Graeme MacQueen, “118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (online), Aug. 2006.
5 “Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories,” 911Truth.org.
6 Griffin, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True,” in Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006), 79-122; also at 911Review.com.
7 See my chapter on NIST in Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Olive Branch, Northampton, Mass., 2007).Source: www.reopen911.info
- --- holderlin66 <holderlin66@...> wrote:
> Thanks Serena and Michael Howell;Yes, Serena and Michael, you have both been awarded
> We all know that these sweet little subjective happy
> faces here at
> AT all have our best interest at heart. Such a great
> opportunity to
> present rich insights into the time we live in and
> share the rise of
> common sense is sought, as you well know, by all
> those here. You
> know Serena and Michael, a good time was had by all.
Holderin merit badges.
>Who are they, Bradford? just let us know and Sophia
> Then of course there are those who merely love to be
> refuse to entertrain contradictions, polarities and
> use their
> discernment for all that represents the greatness of
> with narrow subjective intent. It is falsely thought
> that Anthros
> should be lighting the path ahead to the connections
> and dots to all
> the events happening around us. But most common
> Anthros can't weigh
> in on the West's nightmarish plunge into nearly
> losing America to
> fascism. Gee I guess they skipped those classes in
> the Michael
> School where people understood, as Steiner did, the
> nature of occult
will nuke their asses into Lemuria.
I suppose it would be hard to get them
> to pronounce theUh oh, I am getting the impression that you mean US,
> word LIAR, absolute liar to utter it, to get it out
> past their holy
> lips regarding GWB and Cheney....It doesn't really
> matter to them
> that we are murdering, as usual, hundreds of
> thousands of innocent
> men, women and children for our American mall life
the few here who have rebutted the infantile 911
conspiracy theories. If that is the case, it is
extremely insulting and an outright fucking lie.
>Anyone who takes the Michael School seriously will
> But you know Serena and Michael the same knotted
> group of true
> believers can cling to whatever they wish and swift
> boat and label
> those who are looking into these things and seeing
> one deception
> after another leading us to Iran and a real world
> mess, AGAIN. Again
> and again, and those who are so stubborn and refuse
> to be shoved,
> pushed or pointed in any direction, will stand there
> braying and
> kicking, even if they were in the Michael School.
> There are many who
> turn the terms of truth, insight and motive into
> some subjective
> game that can be played with the usual sentient soul
> heat that is
> craved for. Without that sentient soul hit,
> addiction, chemical
> high, some Anthros just can't understand the
> constancy of someone
> like Noam Chomsky.
find the above statement to be a foul aberration.
>Anthro-egotism? Reread what you just wrote and see it
> Noam Chomsky, well kindly don't mention him because
> as an
> Intellectual Soul sterling example, these people who
> diddle and
> babble and crave for some subjective heat because
> they have no ideas
> have no right approaching the intellectual soul
> field of Noam
> Chomsky or a host of others with their tainted
> subjective anthro
>Hoses send a flow of clean water to wipe away the
> Anyways thanks Serena and Mike for your ability to
> test and live
> with the pulse of an awakening human sense of truth
> and helping us
> all to restore common sense. Most Anthros support
> those who wake up
> and begin to find their way out of the morass we
> have dug ourselves
> into. Most people who have had some Philosophy of
> Freedom training
> should be able to avoid the bullshit and steer
> themselves out of the
> maze of their own subjective hall of mirrors.
> Anthros are either
> exceptional people or just common, common as a
> garden hose.
exceptional crud. Thanks for the complement.
>Viva las mangueras squirting away at the exceptional
> It is good to see how selfish subjective egotism can
> find a way to
> slam really good people like those who are probing
> the staged and
> false flag event that hijacked the 21st century.
> Exceptional Anthros
> can clearly see how the hijacking of this new
> century benefits the
> very forces that Steiner predicted would surge
> upwards and meet us.
> Well it has, they did, and there remain exceptional
> Anthros and
> Anthros as common as garden hoses.
Your favorite Garden Hose,
Frank Thomas Smith
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.