9/11 truth and the N.Y.Times



            “Let the word go forth…”  The 9/11 Truth Movement has become worthy of close to two-thirds of a page in the New York Times.  That idea needs to be ruminated upon for a minute.  Have any of those with the interest in, or stomach for, a consideration of the theft and destruction of this democracy looked to that paper for update, evaluation, or considered opinion?  Hardly.  That paper has spent virtually no time challenging the official line, except when it didn’t know that is what it was doing.


            Take the instance of the statements of the firefighters who survived their encounter with evil and devastation.  In the days that followed 9/11, each of the men and women who had a part in the rescue effort was interviewed with tape recorder rolling and asked to describe what they saw, heard, and felt.  Their statements, some five hundred or so, remained beyond public scrutiny until the New York Times filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. 


            In the summer of 2005, victory was achieved, and all of those statements, by Battalion Commander and rookie firefighter, were released for public inspection.  The New York Times inspected, and, under the byline of Jim Dwyer, the New York Times reported.  It reported that many (the number alludes me at the moment) firefighters, of all rank and job, heard, saw, and felt, explosions just before the World Trade Center towers fell down, perfectly and quickly, into their very own footprint. 


            Explosions?  As a retired trial lawyer, I am not in a position to say that the existence of explosions before collapse, as many reported, is INconsistent with a burning building falling down because the steel has become weakened by a fire that burned for only about an hour, and only really hot for about ten minutes, though I sincerely believe that it is.  What I can say with as much certainty as the human condition permits is that explosions are CONSISTENT with controlled demolition.


            So there we sit at 229 West 34th Street, with a very serious pile of eyewitness accounts that, if they don’t dispute the official version emphatically, which it is my belief they do, must be described as extremely strong evidence for the contrary view.  Does the senior editor demand that Jim Dwyer get to the bottom of this theoretical problem?  I doubt it.  Does Jim Dwyer demand to be allowed to continue the investigation to see where the 9/11 Commission Report made omissions or engaged in distortions?  I doubt it.


            When contacted by phone, after the months had slid by with none of the questions raised, answered or addressed, Mr. Dwyer was politely dismissive of the conspiracy theory.  From memory, I report, begging for someone to correct all of the mistaken impressions which have found voice at my hands; I report that Mr. Dwyer found the idea of controlled demolition implausible.  Why exactly?  Well, said Mr. Dwyer, I reported on the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.  I know the quantity of explosives used in that instance.  I know that the building barely felt it, (or words to that effect).  The idea that necessarily larger amounts were placed all up and down the entire building in order to effect a controlled demolition is unfathomable to me, says he (or words to that effect).  Violative of Occam’s Razor, says he (or words to that effect).  Of course, William of Occam is my best pal in this debate, the number of assumptions required to contort oneself into the official position being close to unquantifiable, but I didn’t really get to tell him all of that.


            The inevitable “sorry, I’m on deadline” ended the conversation, and subsequent requests for an interview have gone unresponded-to, if they were ever taken note of.


            So, I doubt that there were demands for further investigation by any part of the New York Times, because the answers would be unacceptable.  One needn’t think of the import of one’s own words as long as they make it out of one’s mouth.  Does a controlled demolition using thermite or the equivalent involve the tons of material involved in the case of ammonium and fertilizer?  Does it give one pause that if the size of the 1993 explosion didn’t faze the building in the slightest, that a plane which left it in no way unstable after impact could have been responsible for its collapse, no matter the intercession of an hour long fire, hot for only ten minutes?  Am I repeating myself?


            What then are we to do at 229 West 34th Street when there is a convention of, what shall we call them in the headlines?  Skeptics of the official story?  Disbelievers in the Commission Report?  Conspiracy theorists?  Now we are on to something.  That phrase has been enormously effective in the past.  It is the staple of Fox News, a proven commodity sure to disparage the subject and dissuade the reader.  But can we do better?  “Yes, you there, Mr. Pimsley, your idea?” “‘Buff’, sir,” offered Pimsley.  “‘Buff’ was a standard in the days when the Kennedy assassination would not go away.”  “’Buff’ you say, Pimsley?  Yes, I seem to recall. ‘Buff” it is.”


            The very excellent news is that the substance of the story compared the 9/11 Truth Movement to those who questioned the legitimacy of the Tonkin Gulf Incident, and I believe one must travel far indeed to find an historian who believes the government’s account of that “provocation” to have been anything other than a sick, purposeful lie designed to fool the citizens of a republic into supporting a doomed military adventure because our leaders had not the courage or the wisdom to recognize the fact.   Thus was short-term political advantage turned into long-term human devastation. 


            One must be wary indeed as one reads the newspaper of record.

2,408 Total Views

Leave a Reply