9/11 Debate: The Resolute Meets the Immovable

People are inclined to latch onto the initial explanation of whatever they see.   This is a well known psychological principle which is exploited by propagandists everywhere, including those who managed the public presentation of 9/11.  It’s by accident that I happened to learn a few things about physics, then a few things about “secret” US history, several years before I saw the collapse of building 7.    It was a strange confluence of information, but I guess it prepared me to to accept the objective evidence of controlled demolition more easily than many people.   So I can’t really fault Taibbi (below), he’s trying to cope with evidence which is diametrically opposed to his own psychological need to believe that there are constraints on the powers that reign over him and society at large.   I wish I could believe the same, life would be a hell of a lot simpler.  But it turns out that belief in such constraints is what negates them.

In any case, I’d like to take exception to the editor’s claim that Griffin is the preeminent spokesperson for the truthers, if there is such a thing.  Griffin has certainly been a conduit of truth, but to me, the evidence speaks for itself.  The problem is that acceptance of that evidence requires a fundamental change in one’s mental model of how human society works.   Such paradigm shifts have always been difficult, but have also been hallmark of human progress.

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.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.