May 20 2009
Conspiracy Theories Obscure Real Political Analysis
President Barack Obama yesterday was sent a letter urging him to invite to the White House a man named Richard Gage. Gage is an architect who claims to be able to prove that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by timed controlled explosive demolitions. He is promoting a video called Blueprint for 9/11 Truth and is part of a large movement of Americans who believe that something other than planes hijacked by Al Qaeda members were responsible for the 9/11 tragedy. They call themselves the 9/11 Truth movement, and large numbers of blogs, as well as many hours of airtime on this station, are devoted to mountains of information questioning the official story. This week on a popular online political magazine, Alternet featured a commentary by senior writer and editor Joshua Holland critiquing conspiracy theorists. Holland has himself questioned the official 9/11 storyu before. But, in his new piece, he contends that “Conspiracy theories often pre-empt substantive analysis of the real political structures that shape our society.”
GUEST: Joshua Holland, Senior Writer and Editor at www.Alternet.org
Read Holland’s article at http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/140066/3_good_reasons_(and_1_bad_one)_why_i_don%27t_buy_into_your_conspiracy_theories/
17 Responses to “Conspiracy Theories Obscure Real Political Analysis”
Richard Gage is a true American hero. Almost 700 professional architects and engineers have signed on wake up the American people to the truth about the controlled demolitions of the three World Trade Center towers, and that’s more than doubled from a year ago. The numbers are growing because the evidence is irrefutable. The substantive analysis outlined in his presentation BLUEPRINT FOR 9-11 TRUTH is methodical and based on absolutely solid factual evidence. Check it out at http://www.ae911truth.org
To Sonali Kolhatkar and Joshua Holland
Re: 9/11
I listened with interest to your interview this morning with Joshua Holland of AlterNet, aware of your predilections around 9-11. I thought Holland’s expression “How can you do activism against a bunch of shadowy actors behind the scenes” particularly telling, smacking of intellectual laziness. Perhaps a couple stories would help illustrate what I mean.
On a dark night an individual searches the ground under a lamppost. A good Samaritan passing by offers to help.
“What are you looking for?”
“I lost my keys.”
“Where did you lose them?”
“Over there by the alley.”
“Why then are you looking over here!?”
“The light’s better.”
An innocent individual is arrested in a fantasy kingdom for what he does not know, and tossed into a dark dungeon. As his eyes grow accustomed to the light, he realizes he is far from alone. Many creatures regard him suspiciously, and a conversation ensues, from which he realizes they each provide some assumed role in the affairs of the dungeon, and they now are interested to know how he will fit into their mix.
“Well, have any of you ever tried to escape?” he asks.
A small creature pipes up from the darkness, “You can’t do that. That’s my job.”
While I’m not someone who believes in conspiracy theories necessarily, neither do I dismiss them either. They are, after all, theories, which means an explanation of certain facts awaiting proof. They arise often because the ‘official story’ often ignores many facts they’d rather not see examined.
For instance, did William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper magnate, use his position and power to push the American population into war with Spain. At this point I believe this is a point of fact; conspiracy, involving him and many of his many employees, yes. Theory, no. Did Orson Wells base his groundbreaking film Citizen Kane on the life of Hearst; again, fact. Seen in one light, conspiracy, involving Wells, the actors, the production company, and the exhibitors, to expose Hearst, and make money. Theory, not. Did Hearst use his power to suppress and discredit the film (running negative reviews in the hundred or so newspapers under his control, and threaten exhibitors), and subsequently attempt to ruin Wells’ career; fact. Conspiracy, yes, theory, no.
We are willing to entertain the idea that figures within our government conspire to kidnap people off foreign streets and torture them at various undisclosed locations throughout the world. We must accept at this point that figures with government sanction have purposefully injected African Americans with syphilis and GIs with plutonium without their knowledge in order to study them, that viral agents were released in the surf and subways of San Francisco in order to track the spread of disease. Do I think this is indicative of the majority of those who serve in government? No, but that these events occurred is a matter of public record, if one cares to look, exposed in documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, a law which the George W. Bush administration summarily ignored and attempted to dismantle.
Ditto the lie of the Tonkin gulf attack used to justify the war in Vietnam, exposed by the Pentagon Papers. Two million Vietnamese dead, and 60,000 US counting only those killed in direct combat, not the aftermath, so Lyndon Johnson’s friends could make money.
A million and a half Afghans died as a result of our policies before 2001. Do we know, do we care? Oh, but those are mostly foreign dead, right, not Americans, our government would never do that to its own people, you say. What about the soldiers—well soldiers always die I guess, so they don’t count? Please. If you choose to believe that the murders of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and others were the result solely of the lone gunmen punished for the crime, and conclude that for the most part justice is alive and well, what then of the National Guardsmen at Kent State, Jackson State, or for that matter the Blackwater sharpshooters at New Orleans, none of whom have seen the inside of a courtroom or even been identified. Which is only to say that bad things happen, especially when people of like mind get together.
The history of our nation is replete with examples of those with power using the means at their disposal to manipulate the public and the government to their bidding. Exceptions (Teddy’s trust busting, FDR) are notable, but serve mainly to prove the rule. The people with power and vested interest are identifiable, but are rarely connected with their actions because they successfully use the means at their disposal to conceal their activities from the public at large. Union leaders and political activists, by contrast, are only capable of performing successfully by attracting public awareness, and they often suffer for their actions with their life. Which might form an argument, subconsciously at least, for not probing too deeply, too publicly.
I am not an architect, engineer, or scientist. Do I think the towers were brought down by Chinese space lasers or an atom bomb? No. Do I think they were brought down solely by aircraft and nineteen hijackers? Possibly; taking into account that their funding came from the CIA redirected through Pakistani intelligence (and some Saudis), and some in a position to know chose to make money off the attack by over-insuring the buildings and placing put options on the airline stocks affected, and putting down the quashing of FBI investigations and the erasure of a vast database of terrorism investigation solely to incompetence and ass covering and currying favor with those in power (sucking up to Bush protecting the Saudis), and I’d need to hear some kind of explanation for those little puffs of smoke that certainly look like ‘squibs,’ the trails of smoke that jut out from sequentially timed explosives in a controlled demolition—possible, but a stretch. Do I think that some in a position to know this attack was coming sought to make it even more sensational, by assisting the demolition of the Towers and loss of life with planted explosives, in order to further political ends they believed would fabulously increase their power and wealth? Possible, taking into account many credible eye-witness reports of events from several weeks prior to and including the day of.
Lyndon Johnson himself remarked that he didn’t believe a word of the Warren Report. While still touted as gospel in some quarters with convoluted explanations to support it, it is widely regarded as a whitewash in others (Photographs taken the day of show a bullet imbedded in the front of the chrome above the windshield. Explain that with your single bullet theory.)
The 9-11 Commission Report has numerous flaws. I say let those with the expertise who feel motivated to do so pursue their investigations, hopefully one day with government sanction, without the need to prejudice our opinions one way or the other. To which I say good luck, but I mean that. Our track record in this area is not so great. Those of us without such expertise could use our intellect to more accurately make connections in the social realm.
Do I think that keeping photos of torture secret will protect our troops? No. Keeping them secret will protect the torturers, and continue the practice. Being seen as torturers with or without photos to prove it will not protect our troops. Quite the contrary. Exposing the photos to the public would hopefully result in outrage and revulsion at what has been allowed to transpire in our name, resulting in a push for a change of policy, and prosecutions, which by his actions is obviously something Obama fears, perhaps out of concern for his own safety. This would, by the way, do more to protect the troops.
Exposure dis-empowers the guilty, and forces a change of policy. So what we need is more light, but it’s got to be in the right place. There’s plenty of work to go around. Most of the time I believe you do a pretty good job with your microphone, but not always. The original meaning of the word ‘sin’ came from archery, meaning simply, to miss the mark. We all need to improve our accuracy, if we are to resolve our difficulties.
Charles Fredricks
Santa Monica
I hope that a lot of money was obtained in payments to KPFK by Alternet for the conversation with Alternet’s Joshua Holland Friday morning. Normally, Sonalee presents insightful and penetrating programs, but this one was nothing more than blatant obfuscation by Holland, who seems a paid acolyte of the neocons, militarists, and Zionist zealots. His pseudointellectual slanders were deceitful, patronizing, and infected with deliberate fraud. I could never believe anything Holland ever reports again now that I have been personally subjected to his deceit. I am also deeply disappointed by the normally brilliant Kulhatkar who this time fawned over this scoundrel and even seemed to lend credibility to his obnoxious blather–the only cause I can imagine is that she was trying to obtain a lot of money for KPFK by her obsequiousness to Holland.
Mark – that sounds like a conspiracy theory!
Sonali,
Have you actually read the paper in question as opposed to relying on Holland’s claims about its scientific merits? I read Holland’s article and listened to the interview, and there was not one substantive, detailed critique of the science in question. I surely hope you did your homework before getting distracted by liberal cliche’s about “conspiracy theories”. I find “journalists” like Holland more concerned about their reputation than they are about facts.
I’ve written on this topic myself, and have addressed it quite publicly on Indymedia On Air, where I asked Kevin Ryan directly about the chain of custody issues surrounding their evidence that Holland so flippantly dismisses. Holland either doesn’t understand or purposefully ignores the key scientific questions.
Further, I certainly don’t subscribe to the caricature of the 911 fringe, nor do I care for the right wing elements amongst those curious about 911. It’s a red-herring for lefty liberal types to focus in on this aspect, while missing the deeper political and cultural significance of the effect 911 has had on (former) true believers of “Democracy.” I am more than happy to debate the efficacy of how 911 issues can or cannot be used for organizing, but at this point, the idea of defending the official story is totally absurd, given the amount of both circumstantial and scientific data available.
I believe in structural analysis, always have, but I won’t put my head in the sand, especially given my background as a research chemist. I am aware that you have a degree in physics, correct? Why don’t you interview Dr. Niels Harrit directly on your show (links below), the lead scientist on the nano-thermitic materials paper? It would be much more interesting and valuable than Hollands 10 minute ad hominem attack rant. But I fear that is what you really wanted out of that “journalist”, but I certainly hope not. I trust you are fair, and would welcome an interview with one of one of the scientists that authored the recent paper in question.
Finally, I should add that as someone who has spent the majority of his life in social movements and struggles for change, from labor organizing to solidarity with the Zapatistas, from Indymedia to Kill Radio, etc, I can attest that I am an anti-authoritarian activist that gets structural analysis, but I won’t put my head in the sand when confronted with compelling data that suggests everything we were told about 911 from official sources is most probably a fiction. Lets lay the science on the table and debate it, instead of quibbling over ridiculous ad-hominems, ad infinitum.
And one last thing. Holland is quoted as saying, “Conspiracy theories often pre-empt substantive analysis of the real political structures that shape our society.”
(And of course, we have to rely on Holland to define “real political structures”)
I’d rewrite that to say, “Journalists often pre-empt substantive analysis of the real political structures that shape our society, especially when they make a living at it.”
In Solidarity,
Chris Burnett
Host of Indymedia On Air, KPFK.
Links:
1. Dr. Niels Harrit’s, et al paper:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=624fb8c76852c2985cd3033d45b8b4f1
2. An interview with Dr. Niels Harrit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
3. My interview with Kevin Ryan, co-author of the paper, on KPFK:
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3/kpfk_090406_150223indymed.mp3
Sonali – How dare you insinuate that people who question 9/11 are somehow herded in with some right wing movement. You just committed a “Rush Limbuagh” move and you know it.
And are you telling me you still believe Oswald alone killed Kennedy? C’mon honey I know that’s Chomsky’s line, but let’s get real here.
And let’s not forget your comment about how 9/11 DVDs are played “ad-nauseum” on KPFK during your fundrives… well did you ever stop to think that it might be that way because those films resonate with people who aren’t sheeple? Maybe they raise a considerable amount of money and thus are rebroadcast. I noticed you forgot to mention that part – and I also notice that your shows don’t get rebroadcast that much during the fund drives…hmmmm…sour grapes perhaps?
Simply put, your interview with the Alter Net hack (who isn’t a qualified engineer, architect or physicist but a glorified blogger) was shameful.
Link correction for the Active Thermitic Materials Paper by Dr. Niels Harrit et al,
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
then click download…
Your “interview” with the Mr Holland lacked any substance whatsoever. Instead of doing a “psychological analysis” on the “conspiratorial” mindset, why not do some “analysis” on how deployment of the term “conspiracy theory” functions to squelch critical analysis.
We listen to KPFK because we know that the other media is just a mouthpiece for the establishment. Your condescending tone suggests that you regard KPFK listeners as nutbags.
Hey kiddo, I’m sure there’s room for at least one more smart, atheist, liberal, feminist journalist at NPR.
Regarding his article of the 18th May, Holland does not go into detail regarding his statement that the claims of the 9-11 truth movement do not bear up under scrutiny. He also simplifies by caricature the arguments of the truth movement. For example, he will take one argument of the truth movement, perhaps one of the weaker ones, and present it as if it were the only one upon which certain conclusions were based, when there are generally a host of arguments begging a particular conclusion.
He mentions the Popular Mechanics’ critique of 9-11 truth, but once again is light on specifics. By the way, the State Department is all agog about PE, and uses its series of so-called “debunking” articles as its primary defense for the offical story.
Such faux argumentation is not likely to earn the respect of critical thinkers, although it might hold together for a bit longer the corterie of paid savants who cling to the official version of the events of 9-11.
For those interested in a detailed interview with Dr. Harrit, he answers questions about his research history, his methodology, sample integrity, etc.
http://www.gulli.com/news/world-trade-center-destruction-2009-05-24/
Dr. Harrit is the lead author on a recent peer reviewed scientific paper showing the presence of highly exothermic (explosive) nano-thermite in the dust from the WTC.
Sonali:
It would seem that bourgeois foreign students at the University of Hawaii were exempted from a class most other students have to take, called Critical Thinking. Since U of H neglected this important part of your education, I will explain what a genetic fallacy is:
“Ad hominem types of attack can be directed at organizations, groups, or other entities as well as at specific individuals.
“In general, when we reject a claim, policy or position just because of its source, associations or history, we commit the genetic fallacy. If this sounds to you a lot like what we said about ad hominem pseudoreasoning, you are perfectly correct. You can think of ad hominem as being a specific variety of the genetic fallacy; just remember that the genetic fallacy also includes cases
where the source is not a specific individual.”
Of course, you and the idiot you interviewed went one step further. You didn’t merely say that arguments of people interested in 911 were not credible because they belonged to a particular organization, such as
the Roman Catholic Church, but you invented an entire class of individuals who, in your view, suffer from a psychological complex. How do we gain membership in
this group? Why, by attempting to look at the science of the as yet unexplained disintegration of three steel-reinforced skyscrapers on the same day.
So to the genetic fallacy you have added a circular argument that neatly avoids the actual issue. The argument goes like this: “Your claim that the buildings did not collapse from fire has no merit because you belong to a group suffering from a mass psychosis. The reason we know you suffer from mass psychosis is because you claim the buildings did not collapse from fire.”
While not as pointless as your March 2003 expose of “racism in the (now defunct) peace movement” the show was just as offensive.
i admit to being in the “undecided” category. sonali, i appreciate your coverage of alternative 9/11 theories and the stigma attached to those interested.
some of the more abstract options make it hard for someone like me to look for more info or bring it up in conversation due to that stigma.
i did find richard gage’s website (http://www.ae911truth.org) helpful and would also like to find a balanced critique on his findings. i am seriously open minded concerning this and found his point of view interesting… yet would like to find a trusted source to give a rebuttal. if anyone reading this knows of a good sourse. please post a link/etc. here.
i really hope uprising radio revisits this topic and i appreciate this neutral way they went about it. i also enjoyed the alternet.org article, i just wish that it countered more of the less abstract “truth” statements.
thanks.
I’m not certain the place you’re getting your info, but great topic. I must spend some time studying much more or understanding more. Thanks for magnificent information I was in search of this info for my mission.
That is certainly accurate! I actually loved reading your website, it appears just about every bit as informative because it truly is. Maintain the great job.
Is the Really simply syndication link functional? I cannot find a way to subscribe to your main feed for some reason, however the comments feed works properly?
you are really a excellent webmaster. The website loading speed is incredible. It sort of feels that you’re doing any unique trick. In addition, The contents are masterwork. you’ve performed a wonderful process in this topic!
As I web site possessor I believe the content material here is rattling wonderful , appreciate it for your hard work. You should keep it up forever! Good Luck.