Jump to content
The Education Forum

Miami Herald on the Assassination


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting article in yesterday's Miami Herald:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/...on/13760721.htm

Avoiding the hard questions

ROBERT STEINBACK

I was 8 years old when President John Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas in 1963. If grace favors me, I'll be 62 when documents related to the assassination are released to the public, and 84 when the Warren Commission's investigative files into the tragedy are finally opened.

That's a long time to wait for a chance to evaluate the purported truth.

It's a blot on the presumed sophistication of the people of the United States that any aspect of an event so dramatic and shocking should be kept from us. Perhaps it's true, to abuse the line from A Few Good Men yet again, that we can't handle the truth. But there cannot be genuine resolution as long as such critical information remains concealed.

Since Kennedy's assassination, Americans have lurched between demanding to know and plugging their ears: The Pentagon Papers, My Lai, the King assassination, Watergate, Iran-contra, the savings-and-loan debacle, Monicagate. Lately, however, it would seem the public's verdict is in: Don't tell us. Keep us in the dark. We don't want to know.

This is the worst possible time for probe-ophobia to grip us. Our nation was irretrievably transformed by 9/11 -- and yet there remain troubling questions about what really happened before, during and after that day. Rather than demanding a full and fearless vetting to hone in on the truth and silence the conjecture about 9/11, many Americans remain unwilling to peer into the microscope.

An online cottage industry of theorists, theory debunkers and debunker debunkers has flourished since 9/11. Sometimes the flimsy theories are easy to spot -- come on, if the four passenger jets didn't crash where it appears they did, where did they go? More often, though, the cases aren't so obvious.

A group of experts and academicians 'devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, 'letting the chips fall where they may,' '' last week accused the government of covering up evidence that the three destroyed New York City buildings were brought down that day by controlled demolition rather than structural failure. The group, called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has a website, www.st911.org.

The reflexive first reaction is incredulity -- how, one asks, could anyone even contemplate, never mind actually do such a barbaric thing? But before you shut your mind, check the resumés -- these aren't Generation X geeks subsisting on potato chips and PlayStation. Then look at the case they present.

''I am a professional philosopher who has spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,'' group co-founder and University of Minnesota professor James H. Fetzer told me. "When I come to 9/11, it's not hard for me to determine what is going on. This is a scientific question. And it is so elementary that I don't think you can find a single physicist who could disagree with the idea that this was a controlled demolition.''

The group asks, for example,

• How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

• Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.

• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?

• Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?

• Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?

Our current probe-ophobia is due in part to the political landscape: When one party holds all the cards, any call to investigate an alleged abuse of power or cover-up -- no matter how valid -- will look like a partisan vendetta. Those in power never want to investigate themselves.

Maybe that's politics; he who holds the hammer drives the nails. But the outrage of 9/11 transcends party affiliation.

We need all the outstanding questions answered -- wherever the chips may fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article in yesterday's Miami Herald:

Hard to imagine this article in a mainstream newspaper. TG do you know anything about this paper or author?

Nice to see him asking some hard hitting questions. I just wonder how the story made it past his editor.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miami Herald is a moderate to liberal newspaper with some conservative columnists. (In 2004 it got carried away with its liberalism and endorsed Kerry; despite the endorsement, Kerry did not carry Florida.)

The piece appeared in the "opinion" section of the paper. I have no idea who the author is.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miami Herald is a moderate to liberal newspaper with some conservative columnists. (In 2004 it got carried away with its liberalism and endorsed Kerry; despite the endorsement, Kerry did not carry Florida.)

The piece appeared in the "opinion" section of the paper. I have no idea who the author is.

It's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when a journalist explores valid questions about 9-11 and he appears to be the lone voice. I agree wholeheartedly with his analysis of American's reticence to explore the dark side of 'tragic affairs.' Somehow I get the feeling that our founding fathers (if they could see what has happened to the state of the union in 2006) might feel like 'we deserve whatever happens to us' in light of the collective lack of interest in 'government shenanigans'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Miami Herald is a moderate to liberal newspaper with some conservative columnists. (In 2004 it got carried away with its liberalism and endorsed Kerry; despite the endorsement, Kerry did not carry Florida.)

The piece appeared in the "opinion" section of the paper. I have no idea who the author is.

It's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when a journalist explores valid questions about 9-11 and he appears to be the lone voice. I agree wholeheartedly with his analysis of American's reticence to explore the dark side of 'tragic affairs.' Somehow I get the feeling that our founding fathers (if they could see what has happened to the state of the union in 2006) might feel like 'we deserve whatever happens to us' in light of the collective lack of interest in 'government shenanigans'.

Its not just America Robert, a large, and ever increasing number of my fellow British citizens seem to take a "If its not hurting me, why should I bother" attitude to all kinds of Government, and big business scandels. A sad comment on 21st Century morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not just America Robert, a large, and ever increasing number of my fellow British citizens seem to take a "If its not hurting me, why should I bother" attitude to all kinds of Government, and big business scandels. A sad comment on 21st Century morals.

Hey Steve

I think this becomes or already is a problem Europe wide. Just for example; for the last several weeks our media was packed with articles concerning the CIA flight across Switzerland and the climate of public opinion demonstrated clearly that most people thought is was not right and violated our neutrality. Since yesterday we know nothing was wrong and we were told and assured by our Government that the USA has answered all the open question and has revealed all the necessary information that were needed to renew the allowance for their CIA flights to cross Swiss airspace until the end of this year.

The only thing the United States had to do was giving their promise they would never ever do it (sounded more like we’ll never do it again) and have not done so in the past. It must have been a slap in the face for our Dick Marty who leads the investigation. So much from a country that does not hesitate to point out its neutrality!

Therefore I absolutely agree with your statement.

Greez

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...