Warwick Boar's Opinion Editor, George Eaton's same–page repost to my article
READ MY RESPONSE HERE
To give the “9/11 Truth Movement” its due, they have succeeded in cultivating a large support base. 36 percent of American citizens now believe that it is “likely” or “very likely” that the US government staged the attack themselves. Jack Morgan puts his case rather more modestly, citing only polls of that notoriously reliable source – the bereaved. We cannot ignore, he writes, “over half of vicitims’ families”, who sare this conviction. Morgan and his ilk normally mock the US population for their credulity, but in this case they apparently see it as standing in their favour.
If you’ll pardon the expression, Morgan seems to stand on the more moderate wing of the movement. He does not apparently support David Shayler’s assertion that the planes of 9/11 were actually missiles camouflaged by holograms, although this claim was favourably received in the documentary Terrorstorm, which Morgan describes as a “competent historical overview of government-sponsored terrorism”. Instead, he favours the “controlled demolition hypothesis”, as elaborated by Mr. Rodriguez.
The first fallacy of this argument is the extent to which it relies on the US government co-opting thousands of individuals, from demolition experts to the US aviation authorities and the World Trade Centre security firms, into a plot in which they would have no direct interest. If Morgan had ventured to take on this point, no doubt he would have argued that they were paid-off by the stinking-rich corporatist criminal networks” he speaks of. Although if profit were the motive, one imagines that at least one individual would have blabbed to the omnipresent US media before the explosion.
As George Monbiot put it, “if there is one universal American characteristic, it is a confessional culture that permits no one with a good story to keep his mouth shut”. It is far more likely that there was no grand plot to tell than it is that this convention was broken.
The second difficulty is the lack of academic opinion and evidence in favour of Rodriguez’s hypothesis. Morgan claims that the account is supported by hundreds of structural engineers, architects and physicists”, although he provides no names or groups. He only cites the thoroughly discredited Journal of 9/11 Studies, the co-editor of which, Steven Jones, was ostracised by his university for scientific disregard.
As the overwhelming majority of experts, from the American Society of Civil Engineers to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, have painstakingly documented, the collapse was both explainable and predictable. by first rupturing the support columns, the planes created unstoppable pressure from the top of a kind no building can resist. Quite rightly, Morgan gives no ulterior motive for so many reputable experts to abandon the scientific method; he can’t because there wasn’t one.
Prominent neoconservatives and Republicans have consistently shown themselves incapable of proceeding even with low-level, personal schemes. From the perjury of Scooter Libby to the disgraced lobbying of Jack Abramoff and the nepotism of Paul Wolfowitz, the banal incompetence of these individuals has been exposed for all to see. A competent administration skilled in such plots would never have allowed itself to be so mercilessly exposed on WMD. Burying weapons in the sands of Baghdad would have been far easier to accomplish than a 9/11 in-job.
Unlike Morgan, I won’t refer to my opponents as arrogant. The arrogant would find far worthier causes with which to ingratiate themselves. As it stands, Morgan and his kind twin an intense solipsism with a pernicious populism. They distract attention away from real abuses such as corporate greed, climate change apathy and nuclear proliferation. The figures of the “Truth Movement” aren’t valiant seekers of justice; they’re the useful idiots of the Bush administration.