Ethical Reflections on the 9/11 Controversy

Rapier

Registered Member
V.I.P.
#1
Ethical Reflections on the 9/11 Controversy

The most important essay you may ever read. Note that Dr. David Ray Griffin, was nominated in 2008 and 2009 for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on 9/11.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...troversy/all/1 Ethical Reflections on the 9/11 Controversy

Do Information Science and Media Professionals Have a Duty to Provide Evidence-Based Information to a Questioning Public?


by Elizabeth Woodworth

September 24, 2010
Share
0diggsdigg


This essay was originally published by the international journal, Information for Social Change. It has been republished here with permission from the author.
Abstract:While it is recognized that through the use of meta-analysis and randomized controlled trials the standard of excellence in evidenced-based medicine (EBM) stands alone on a pinnacle, there is nonetheless an evidence-based methodology that can be applied across the board in other decision-making areas. Though research into the events of 9/11 has not yet attained the rigor achieved by EBM, it is still possible to rank the research in this field according to evidence-based principles. This article explains the principles, points to sources that exemplify them, and argues the ethical obligation of librarians and journalists to advance those sources .
Nine-eleven has done more to change the world’s political landscape than any other event since World War II.
And 9/11 is far from over: it triggered what Western leaders have declared an “endless” or “generational” war on terror. Even President Obama stated in March 2009 that the Afghan-Pakistan border region “has become the most dangerous place in the world” for the American people.[1]
Increasingly, however, the official account of its cause has come under rigorous scientific scrutiny and doubt. In Europe, strong media coverage followed the unchallenged 2009 discovery of high-tech military explosives in the World Trade Center dust.[2]
Given the enormous international expense, suffering, and death that continue to hemorrhage from the wound of 9/11, it is vital that librarians and media professionals acquire the knowledge and ethical support to perform their part in addressing the rising tide of doubt.
1. Is there good reason to doubt the official account of 9/11?
Though the imagery of the events of September 11, 2001, is profoundly etched in the collective human memory, there is a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting that these events were not brought about in the manner described by The 9/11 Commission Report of 2004.[3]
Harper’s magazine referred to the Commission’s report as:
“a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive maneuvers that infantilize the audience, transform candor into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation.”[4]
The 9/11 Commissioners themselves reported the obstruction of their mandate by the C.I.A., in a New York Times editorial:
“What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.”[5]
Indeed a vast body of evidence refuting the official account has been compiled in the encyclopedic work The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, which was awarded Publishers Weekly’s “Pick of the Week” in November, 2008.[6]
Its author, Dr. David Ray Griffin, was nominated in 2008 and 2009 for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on 9/11.
Dr. Griffin is controversial in the press, however. In September 2009, the New Statesman cited him as number 41 of “The 50 People Who Matter Today,” complaining that his books had given “a sheen of respectability” to “one of the most pernicious global myths.”[7] The impact of the growing evidence – as revealed through 9/11 conferences, demonstrations, and public opinion polls – caused Guardian columnist George Monbiot to bemoan that “the anti-war movement has been largely co-opted in many places by the 9/11 Truth movement.”[8]
Though controversial, the persistent questions about the 9/11 Commission findings show that the matter is far from settled – indeed thousands of professional people are calling for a transparent re-investigation into 9/11, with full subpoena power.[9]
2. Why is it important that the events of 9/11 be properly understood?
The September 11th attacks have done more to shape world conflict in this century than any other event. More resources are being committed to the resulting “war on terror” than to the foundational issue of the survival of our eco-system. Additionally, the “war on terror” is being waged in the oil-rich Middle East, whose promise of vast oil supplies is delaying the development of alternative energy sources.
As we saw above, in the past year new scientific information has pointed strongly to the use of a high-tech military explosive (nanothermite) in the vertical free-fall collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Many firefighters heard explosions in the basements, and nine years later, organized firefighters are strongly urging a new investigation.[10] The cell phone calls from the airliners are now seriously in doubt,[11] and it has recently been demonstrated that Osama bin Laden probably died in December 2001.[12] The FBI, in any case, offers no evidence for his responsibility in the attacks.[13] The two 9/11 Commission heads, and its senior counsel, have declared that the Commission was lied to.[14]
It is therefore imperative that the truth about 9/11 be established with certainty. It is urgent and essential that all professionals who convey information about 9/11 to the public be equipped with the best possible evidence, so that decision-making about our most pressing issues is based on sound knowledge.

 

Sim

Registered Member
#2
Neither this, nor other claims cause me to doubt the "official version" of the attacks: There is an overwhelming quantity of clues suggesting that it was indeed a terrorist attack by islamist terrorists of the al-Qaida network directed by Osama bin Laden that flew three airplanes into the Twin Towards and the Pentagon.

That the US government was anyhow involved in a conspiracy to bring this about stretches my imagination.

What I do wonder, though, is how much of the hatred of the terrorists was indeed genuinely directed against the US and the West in general and based on islamist ideology, and how much of it was a kind of personal vendetta against Bush and other figures in the administration at that point: Bush and previous American administrations had done "business" with members of the bin Laden family and the islamist network, for example when supporting them, training them and delivering these islamists weapons in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Did a previous US government break their promises when dealing with these thugs, betraying them? Did they make them really angry for some other reason than just being American or their foreign policy in general, and did they seek revenge for that particularly? It's not uncommon that organized crime thugs would seek revenge against unreliable "business partners".

And the worst effect of 9/11 does not rely on the question whether the official version is true: Western governments used the scare and fear after 9/11 to hastily get through very questionable laws that excessively expand executive government power, two wars and other military activities. It's unlikely the US government and others would have found enough public support for these big government excesses, if the 9/11 attacks had not taken place.

And that's what really worries me. For decades, even centuries, freedom loving people who believe in a free, democratic, republican system of government have upheld the ideal of limited government and checking executive power. Then there is 9/11 and many of them voluntarily give up some of the most basic tenets of the Western way of life -- it's legal for uncontrolled, unchecked secret services to kidnap random people from the streets, to hold them indefinitely, to deny them fair trials or legal assistence. Even torture has become official policy again, the right to spy on the people has been expanded. The "military-industrial complex" Dwight Eisenhower once warned us of, if it exists, is exerting more power than ever before.

And the old warning of a slippery slope seems to be confirmed: These measures were not just temporary. Bush did not skip them, and even Obama only made a few cosmetic changes, but even expanded some of them (even US citizens may now be assassinated if they are "a threat to national security" without due process). Once big government has its hand on a new toy, it will hardly ever voluntarily give it back to the people again.

This really worries me much more than anything else about 9/11, and for this problem, it really doesn't matter if the official version is correct.
 

Rapier

Registered Member
V.I.P.
#3
That the US government was anyhow involved in a conspiracy to bring this about stretches my imagination.

What I do wonder, though, is how much of the hatred of the terrorists was indeed genuinely directed against the US and the West in general and based on islamist ideology, and how much of it was a kind of personal vendetta against Bush and other figures in the administration at that point: Bush and previous American administrations had done "business" with members of the bin Laden family and the islamist network, for example when supporting them, training them and delivering these islamists weapons in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Did a previous US government break their promises when dealing with these thugs, betraying them? Did they make them really angry for some other reason than just being American or their foreign policy in general, and did they seek revenge for that particularly? It's not uncommon that organized crime thugs would seek revenge against unreliable "business partners".

And the worst effect of 9/11 does not rely on the question whether the official version is true: Western governments used the scare and fear after 9/11 to hastily get through very questionable laws that excessively expand executive government power, two wars and other military activities. It's unlikely the US government and others would have found enough public support for these big government excesses, if the 9/11 attacks had not taken place.

And that's what really worries me. For decades, even centuries, freedom loving people who believe in a free, democratic, republican system of government have upheld the ideal of limited government and checking executive power. Then there is 9/11 and many of them voluntarily give up some of the most basic tenets of the Western way of life -- it's legal for uncontrolled, unchecked secret services to kidnap random people from the streets, to hold them indefinitely, to deny them fair trials or legal assistence. Even torture has become official policy again, the right to spy on the people has been expanded. The "military-industrial complex" Dwight Eisenhower once warned us of, if it exists, is exerting more power than ever before.

And the old warning of a slippery slope seems to be confirmed: These measures were not just temporary. Bush did not skip them, and even Obama only made a few cosmetic changes, but even expanded some of them (even US citizens may now be assassinated if they are "a threat to national security" without due process). Once big government has its hand on a new toy, it will hardly ever voluntarily give it back to the people again.

This really worries me much more than anything else about 9/11, and for this problem, it really doesn't matter if the official version is correct.
You have a problem with the result of 9/11 yet you ignore, physical impossibilities and the improbable coincidences aside, the literature published by the neoconservative PNAC organization and the New Pearl Harbor letter in 1998 to President Clinton that mapped out the aftermath of 9/11 years before it took place.
 

Sim

Registered Member
#4
You have a problem with the result of 9/11 yet you ignore, physical impossibilities and the improbable coincidences aside, the literature published by the neoconservative PNAC organization and the New Pearl Harbor letter in 1998 to President Clinton that mapped out the aftermath of 9/11 years before it took place.
And this is supposed to mean ... what exactly?

Of course they had a plan for such an eventuality. That's what think tanks do, even sinister think tanks. They make encompassing drafts and policy plans and concepts for all kind of eventualities that may ever become relevant.

It would have been very negligent if, for example, any US government had no plans for the eventuality of Iran getting nukes, a toppling of the Iraqi government or all other kinds of eventualities. They need these plans ready in the casket, should they ever become relevant.
 

Rapier

Registered Member
V.I.P.
#5


Hopefully you're happy and things are going well. And 5 years later you understand that aluminum/fiberglass jets don't slice through steel super buildings with their nose emerging through the other side of the building intact.
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
#6
The Pentagon was the bigger mystery to me. How could a jet that big fly just above the ground long enough to go through the Pentagon with no wreckage laying everywhere. Especially by someone that barely knows how to fly. To me it looks more like a missile went through it.
 

Rapier

Registered Member
V.I.P.
#7
True. Again I remind you. Whatever position the MSM, mainstream media, takes on any major issue, you can be 99% positive it's not in YOUR best interests.
 
Top