Another look at Manjoo's article in Salon

[KJF]

It's come in from some criticism, but I don't think it's quite as bad as it has been made out to be. You can find it here:
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index.html

First of all a little criticism of my own: it focuses on the physical evidence, I'd prefer it if articles spent at least half their time, say, looking at non-physical evidence, like foreign intelligence warnings, problems with the hijackers, where they got their money from, etc.

However, I did find quite a few positive points:
(1) Whilst Manjoo was pretty hard on Avery - I don't really blame him - Hoffman comes off not too badly by comparison. It is instructive that when he needs someone to debunk Loose Change properly he goes to Hoffman, not to one of the debunking sites. IMHO it's because Hoffman's take on LC is the best one available online.

(2) He thinks the best physical evidence for demolition is for WTC 7. This is what he says:
"Then I watched what are perhaps the most compelling images supporting the notion of a forced demolition -- the many videos showing the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. The collapse, which FEMA also pinned on the fires started in the neighboring twin towers, is extraordinary; the building simply disappears into itself, disintegrating like it had been planned for weeks. In one shot from CBS News, Dan Rather, narrating the scene, says the sight is "reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen when a building was deliberately destroyed by world-class dynamite to knock it down." His immediate reaction seems just right -- the building falls so gracefully, so cleanly, it's mystifying."
This is not the first time I've seen this reaction. Experience is confirming what seemed most likely at the start: as far as concerns physical evidence, Seven is the best card.

(3) Some of the links to the next page are quite telling. My favourite is "Will the 9/11 Commission have a second invetigation?" This rather implies that it should have a second investigation.

(4) He expresses a bit of scepticism of the 9/11 CR:
The report "renders the conspiracy in a way that's thoroughly credible. Yet there is a certain are-you-kidding-me quality to any condensed version of the tale".

9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey even admits that maybe they screwed the whole thing up, saying "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version".

One of the main problems with the CR is that a lot of the stuff about the hijackers came from detainees that the Commission questioned via the CIA, not directly. This led to several of the report's errors and, even if no specific examples are given in the article, it at least gets a mention and Kerry says it was "not the best way" to do things.

So, overall, it wasn't a great article, but I've seen worse and it did make a couple of good points.

[BuddyYoung]

1. So, you DO believe in a 911 conspiracy?

Supporters of the "Osama and The Boys" did it: if that is what you say happened, then that, my friend is what is known in the dictionary and in most legal systems as a "CONSPIRACY" and that makes YOU and the others CONSPIRACISTS. Welcome to the real world. How's it feel?

[graphixtech]

2. New letter featured on 911Research.com

911Research.com has recently published C. Thurston's
excellent letter to Farhad Manjoo.


http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/salon/index.html


Dear Farhad,

Thanks for writing about 9/11.

I'm afraid you have done a disservice to Jim Hoffman by not making it clear
that his purpose in analyzing Loose Change is not simply to attack Avery or
the film, but rather to separate out, rescue and highlight the TRUE parts.
It's more about educating than attacking. You leave the impression that he
- like yourself - doesn't seem to believe that there is anything true in
Loose Change. This badly misrepresents Jim's efforts and will no doubt
arouse unhelpful antagonisms and unnecessary polarization in what is
already an emotionally charged debate.


For an understanding of motive behind 9/11, I would recommend looking to
the serious researchers who study these things. Michel Chossudovsky would
be a good place to start. He is Professor of Economics at the University of
Ottawa and has done many studies looking at the true nature of terrorism
and the political and economic forces that were in play in the global arena
on 9/11. You can find his articles on this site:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/.


NIST's claim that they have explained all the evidence just isn't true.
As a matter of fact, the entire focus and content of the report is only to
bring us up to the so-called "triggering event", after which, all they say
is: "Collapse then ensued". It's apparently supposed to be obvious to
anyone why this would occur. But is it? The real evidence for how the
buildings were destroyed is seen AFTER the destruction begins, but this
time frame is beyond the scope of their investigation so it is ignored.
You should make this known to your readers so they can better assess the
conclusions of the NIST report.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm


There's something else you should make clear about the NIST report: Its
conclusions are NOT supported by their own test data. Kevin Ryan,
a courageous whistleblower and former site manager for Underwriters
Laboratories, sacrificed his job in order to make sure that at least a few
people would be aware that NIST and UL were NOT able to create floor model
failure in post-9/11 fire testing, and the steel samples recovered from the
WTC fire zones showed NO evidence of temperatures anywhere near those
required by their hypothesis. NIST ignored all of this important
scientific data and turned instead to computer simulations, where they
could manipulate the results by using undisclosed input values.


Did you ever play with blocks when you were little? I used to like to make
big towers, stacking more and more blocks to see how high they could go.
One thing I noticed was that every time when I'd pull out a block at the
bottom to make the whole thing collapse, it would always either topple to
one side or come down in a big heap and I'd be left with a pile of blocks
where my tower used to be. No matter how many times I tried it, I could
never get the tower to fly apart and scatter blocks all over the room.
Take a look at these photos:

(check link for photos)


If you had never heard of the World Trade Center or 9/11 and somebody
showed you these photos and told you that enormous 110 story skyscrapers
used to stand inside the red outlines and asked your opinion as to what it
looks like has just happened, you would probably notice the smoke, the
darkened discoloration of the area, the shredded pieces of the building
that are covering everything in sight, the damage to the other buildings,
and the absence of a significant heap within each outline and maybe say
something like, "where'd they go?". The old expression "blown to
smithereens" might even come to mind.


Small wonder the 9/11 Commissioners weren't allowed to question Khalid
Shaikh Mohammed. His "statements" were no doubt obtained under torture -
who better to practice their "new rules" on? Do we even know if he is
still alive?


Thanks for considering these thoughts,

C Thurston


on edit:
Sifting Through Loose Change
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/introduction.html

[KJF]

4. Thanks for posting this

I hadn't seen it before. It makes a couple of fair points.

[mirandapriestly]

3. A couple of sneaky things

He leaves alone anything revelatory and goes after things like:
"If you care to look, you won't find a shred of proof that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, or that the World Trade Center was stuffed with gold bars, or that the Pentagon was hit by anything other than a commercial jet"

Well, there isn't a shred of proof that obl "did it" either, but he doesn't say that.

"Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general and a member of the 9/11 Commission -- the independent committee set up by Congress to investigate that day's events -- told me that people who "should know better" routinely ask her about some of the kinds of theories presented in Avery's film. At a recent conference of business leaders in Boston, she recounted, "One prominent executive came up to me and asked me if there was any truth to the story that it was a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon." "

That's interesting and hopeful.

"You'll recall that false media reports were widespread during that morning's hysteria" -

Were THEY false or are the stories they got changed to false?

[KJF]

5. I'm not sure if it's that hopeful

It would have been a lot better if he'd asked "Were the hijackers actually right in the centre of the FBI's counterterrorist coverage?" or "Is it true NIST can't explain the collapse of WTC 7?" or something like that. Visibility is nice, but the problem is that it's coming at the expense of credibility.

Re false stories: I don't buy the Cleveland Airport Mystery, what about you?

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. The NIST report for WTC 7

is a joke.

I read it. There is NOTHING in it. It draws no conclusions and reads more like a Bush speech. A lot of fluff but no substance.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[mirandapriestly]

13. I can't say it did or didn't happen

but I think it is interesting. It doesn't represent all 911 skeptics. Sometimes we come across weird coincidences and the temptation is to "fit" the pieces together into a story, I think that is that is happening with the Cleveland Airport story. In any case it's not fair to take that or the no planes and apply them to all 911 "skeptics".

[KJF]

15. Life's not fair

At least, that's what my mum always used to tell me. However, every time we all get hit with the Cleveland Airport Mystery or a no-plane scenario in the MSM (or whereever) we at least get a little bit of visibility for it, so it's not an entirely bad thing. I'd prefer it if they concentrated on other stuff, though. What would be really good, would be if an MSM person tried to nail down Rummy, Winfield or Myers and get them to say where they were on 9/11 and, in the last two cases, why they had indicated they were somewhere else previously. For example, was Myers in a car, in the videoconference or meeting Cleland when the Pentagon was hit? That would be a real step forward.

Re Cleveland: I'm not buying at all. The articles Woody Box collected could be used to support several versions of what happened at Cleveland, including the official version with just Delta 1989 and the CAM. I don't really see any compelling reason to buy his version of the events just because it sort of "fits" - it just seems like selective misinterpretation to me, the story with only Delta 1989 "fits" too. Sometimes the truth comes out first and then there is a cover up, sometimes confusion comes out first and the truth comes out later.

[BuddyYoung]

6. Excellent post. No shortage of RW Disinfo agents, that's for sure. nt

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Shreds of proof?

Banking records connecting the hijackers and al-Qaeda

Videotaped admissions to his part in the attacks


But other than that, no shreds of proof.

[BuddyYoung]

8. Weaker than water & would NOT be admissible evidence in any court.

nt

[KFC]

9. Of course it would be admissible in court

What law school dod you attend?

[BuddyYoung]

11. Ask JAZZ2006 to explain it. She claims to be a practicing lawyer.

Whether I attended law school and where is irrelevant. I don't claim to be a practicing attorney. Jazz2006 DOES claim that she is. If so, then I'm sure she can explain to you why NO court would permit that to be entered into evidence.

Jazz2006. PAGING Jazz2006. CALL FOR Jazz2006.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Those things WERE admitted into evidence.

In the Moussaoui trial.

[BuddyYoung]

14. Be specific, man. Your post on Larry is proof of the need for specificity

So, tell us WHAT specific "things" are you talking about that were admitted into evidence in the Moussaoui trial, boloboffin.

[mirandapriestly]

18. a red bandana in mint condition

case closed!

[Jazz2006]

16. What are you on about, Buddy?

Banking records and videotape evidence are regularly admitted into evidence, subject to the usual rules of evidence regarding authentication, relevance, etc.

And yes, I am a practicing civil and commercial litigator in real life, despite your repeated accusations to the contrary.

[BuddyYoung]

17. Your post did not answer the question. It merely stated the obvious.

Legal assistant, maybe. Paralegal training, maybe. Attorney, practicing civil and commercial litigation. No way.

[mhatrw]

19. And the $10,000 wired to Atta by the head of the Pakistani ISI

Mahmoud Ahmed -- the head of the intelligence service ISI on 9/11 -- who just happened to be breakfasting during the 9/11 attacks with the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Rep. Porter Goss and Sen. Bob Graham?

"Banking records," indeed!