Thursday, April 27, 2006

The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic’s View By Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor The Crisis Papers

Ernest Partridge, I've just discovered, is Co-Editor of The Crisis Papers which is a bloglike website. I've come across it now and again. It seems to be a "liberal" (as they say in the US) website and apparently, Ernest Partridge is no friend of Republicans or the Bush administration.

So, with that introduction, we can introduce Ernest Partridge's essay "The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic’s View" which is getting some good play across the blogosphere in which he questions both "conspiracy theories" (CTs) and the "official version" (OV) about 911. He appropriately begins his essay with "This essay is certain to make many readers very angry with me. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do." But, frankly, I fail to see why he had to do what he did.

The issue is not that a liberal blogger would question the plausibility of 911 CTs. The issue is that Partridge has done what any white-washing, covering-up, head-in-the-sand partisan has done, which is to conflate nearly everyone who is a contrarian to the OV into the same no-evidence-providing, nothing-better-to-do-with-their-lives basement-dwelleing conspiracty category.

A closer look at the conspiracy theories (CTs) indicates that these too can not be true. Too many improbable assumptions.

Whether Partridge has done this purposefully or appears to do this simply because he wrote the essay fast and posted it hastily, or is confused about what is being claimed, is uncertain but the problem for Partridge is that he ends up the article by claiming he has his own questions and doubts about the OV and that he wants to see further investigation.

The governments, New York City and State, and the Feds still have a lot of splainin’ to do.

What happened on 9/11? Who is responsible? The questions remain open even as they remain urgent. The American people deserve answers, and more immediately, competent and sustained investigation leading to these answers.

So, he appears to be conflicted, dismissing anyone else's questions except his own! I can sypathsize with the guy because after all, who wants to be grouped in with a bunch of conspiracy theorists right?

But Mr. Partridge why do you care about other CTs if you have your own doubts? Shouldn't your own doubts be enough to motivate you to act? There is no "ya gotta do what ya gotta do" about denigrating other people's questions. The only thing you gotta do, Mr. Partridge, if you genuinely have doubts about the OV, is to add your voice to the millions of others expressing their own doubts about the OV.

The sad and simple truth is that evidence or unassailable arguments are not available to the public for a very good reason. Evidence has been sequestered away for "national security reasons" (or no reason at all, its just not available), and the people who know the most about what happened have been ordered or intimidated into not talking about it (eg, Sibel Edmonds). The best official investigations to-date, the Senate and Congressional 911 investigations, the 911 Commission (of Omissions and Distortions), and associated NIST studies avoid addressing critical issues altogether (no clear answer on WTC 7) makes these efforts appear to be cover-ups and white wash jobs . Official intransigence is plainly evident by considering the US Department of State website that apparently represents the best the US government is can to do to refute CTs. Why can't the US government bring an overwhelming case to answer all open questions? In the absence of this, you can't fault anyone for coming up with all sorts of implausible angles on what happened. That this is happening is clearly due to the dearth of information and the widely held feelings that the OV is not the full story.

Also, there is the consideration that, as many informed observers suspect, there are active and ongoing disinformation campaigns to discredit 911 CTs which may be resulting in nutbags coming up with wacky theories designed to make the good ones look bad. This is not paranoia. The US Dept of State website is one very obvious way that the Bush administration is implementing their stated goal to use proganda to advance their objectives and fend off critics. The US Dept of Defense has also stated their goals and intentions to shift the definition of warefare into the information front. Never mind the many, many other sources of soft sell from a variety of individuals and organizations with vested interests in supporting the OV.

But, in the end, it doesn't really matter what CTs people invent, or what suspicions of disinformation exist, because what most people are asking for, as you have, is for a wide ranging and detailed investigation to sort out the details, determine who is culpable for the murder, fraud and deceipt. Let the investigation sort the chafe from the grain. When all evidence is publically available, and all types of qualified experts are freely allowed to investigate and report publically the bad theories will fade away and can more reasonably be denigrated as CTs.

In the meantime, Mr. Partridge, if you have your own doubts about the OV please just put voice to them. Your integrity is not injured by the existence of other CTs. You don't have to question CTs which don't synch with your doubts because the investigation will do it for you. If your doubts are genuine, and they appear to be genuine, then all you gotta do is stand on the rooftops and yell and scream and demand a proper investigation. I don't think anyone, except of course, the perpetrators of the murder, fraud and deceipt will be angry with you then.

A post-post note: Victoria Ashley and Jim Hoffman of have created another rebuttal to Ernest Partridge's sceptical essay, which is very respectful in tone but thorough and detailed about pointing out the things that Partridge overlooked, or glossed over.


Post a Comment

<< Home