9/11

My article in the Observer regarding the concerns raised by Professor Barry Komisaruk about the events surrounding 9/11 ended “To suggest that a conspiracy was formed to destroy the WTC buildings to justify the invasion [of Iraq] is more than unreasonable …[and] borders on paranoia.” Komisaruk’s reply to my article reflects even greater paranoia. He states that “there is significant controversy whether …phone calls [from the doomed plane which crashed in Pennsylvania] actually ccurred”; that “significant public events have been blacked out by the mass media”; and that his hypothetical neocon conspiracy “is no more mind-boggling than the official… theory [that Al-Qaeda was behind the attack]“.

In other words, the relatives of the passengers who related conversations were lying, the press, not exactly pro-Bush, is engaged in a massive coverup and the televising by Al-Qaeda of the final words of one of the hijackers and Osama’s own essential admission of responsibility for 9/11 is not enough to convince him they are the guilty parties. Reasoned discourse with anyone having such a mind-set is impossible. Since naive Observer readers may give some credence to his attempted rebuttal, let me respond to some of his comments. (To respond to all requires more space than the Observer should give to this controversy.)

1. My statement that “the Pentagon was hit by that plane” is called an “assertion, not evidence”. However, I argued that four planes were hijacked, two hit the WTC, one crashed in Pennsylvania, and the fourth is unaccounted for if it did not hit the Pentagon. The logical conclusion is that the plane did hit the Pentagon. Komisaruk is certainly entitled to offer some alternative explanation as to where the plane went. To allege I am making an assertion without justification belies his claim that he is “willing to accept reality and its consequences”.
2. Professor Komisaruk is correct. The plane which crashed in Pennsylvania was Flight 93 and not, as I had written, Flight 143. This does not affect my main point, that if the plane were shot down and did not crash while passengers were attempting to retake control, the motive would have been to prevent more civilian casualties on the ground and no indication of any nefarious plot.

The Air Force has stated that none if its planes were within 100 miles of Flight 93 when it crashed. Of course, Professor Komisaruk would not accept this “valid evidence” since the Air Force is no doubt part of the gigantic conspiracy. 3. Professor Komisaruk claims that my statement that “No group of engineers has come forward insisting the collapse [was]… caused by prewired explosives” is “objectively untrue” because there is a website where more than 230 engineers and architects do make that assertion. My essential point, however, was that the vast bulk of American structural engineers and architects have not insisted the “official” version of how the towers collapsed was “impossible.” The number of engineers and architect in our nation numbers in the thousands. That 230 of them believe something is impossible is no proof that everyone must accept that it is impossible.. 4. Professor Komisaruk asks me “what evidence can you provide that the attack was carried out by the…19 individuals in the official version or that they were Al-Qaeda? How could they have been identified as such almost immediately after the attack?”

An investigation of the passenger lists for the hijacked planes probably made clear who were the likely hijackers. We know that several of the individuals took flying lessons but evinced no interest in learning how to land a plane. As noted above, Al-Qaeda has released a video of one of the hijackers, and Osama himself indicated his organization was responsible. Clearly, someone hijacked the planes. Unless Professor Komisaruk is alleging that despite the evidence just mentioned, even the hijacking was part of the neocon plot, then this would require the supposed neocon plotters to have discovered these plans and have everyone in the intelligence chain of command who found out about this keeping quiet about the discovery, along with many more individuals listed in my first article. This would truly be the mother of all plots and is paranoia run rampant. No doubt that there will be a Komisaruk rebuttal to this article. I will not attempt yet another response. Observer readers have had considerable exposure to the arguments for and against the idea that the “official” version 9/11 has serious open questions. I trust that most will understand that fantastic conspiracies exist in Oliver Stone movies and not in real life.