Tag: 9/11

Dear Mr. Dentith,

I trust that I am addressing the correct Mr. Dentith, if not, full apologies to the recipient. (enjoy!)

With all respect Sir may I suggest that it is naive to believe the official “Bush believers conspiracy theory that 19 Arabs did 9/11 and fire brought down three steel high rise structures for the first time in history on the same site on the one day”.

Your comments would have some credibility if you stated that you have examined and considered the scientific analysis and evidence now available. As with Galileo’s findings, many did not accept them because they would not look through the telescope. I trust that for the benefit of your students, that in regard to the 9/11 matter, you will at least have a peak through the lens.

In considering your doctorate on conspiracy theories perhaps you would wish to include in your studies the following points:

Prosecutors on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen present conspiracy theories to juries in the criminal jurisdictions every day in commonwealth countries. Until such time as a jury convicts then it is a conspiracy theory.

Juries consider the evidence presented in a balanced and impartial objective manner, as is their duty, during their deliberations.

There are many theories that do not stand up considering the evidence and an acquittal should follow.

I have been studying the 9/11 event for over 5 years and have formed the opinion that the twin towers and building No 7 were destroyed with explosives.

I find it offensive for you to infer that I have been naive in studying the ‘9/11 mass murders’ and/or meeting with Mr. Gage, for example. Actually, I have not only had him in my home in Sydney, but also; Frank Legge, Professor Steven Jones, Lt. Col. (ret) Bob Bowman and Yuki Fujita from the Japanese Parliament. Yuki is now in government with his party. Perhaps if you spent some time with some of these honourable people you would moderate your accusations.

I find it extraordinary and offensive that you would infer that; by my studying 9/11 and forming an opinion on it, it would add ‘credibility to groups with fringe and anti-Semitic agendas’. The last aspect is most offensive. What has anti-Semitism have to do with scientific investigation of mass murders? As for fringe groups: it would appear that your expected doctorate studies should be updated with a Time magazine article reporting the 9/11 truth is not a fringe group, considering the hundreds of millions of people who question the Bush Administrations account of 9/11.

Sir, you reference to anti-Semitism is, may I suggest is an attempt to smear respected persons and is an unlearned comment intended to somehow deride thinking people.

I will be sending a copy of this to The Honourable Ms Fitzsimmons (when I find an e-mail address)and I wish to congratulate her on the manner in which she has the courage to diligently carry out her duties to the people of New Zealand. I take it that she will not give any credence to uninformed criticism inferred by your suggestion that she is lacking; ethical standards and lacks the ability to judge things with reason.

Further, Sir in regard to your claim that all the 9/11 conspiracy theories collapse when ‘prodded’. No doubt you will substantiate that inane statement with a balanced critique of Mr. Gage’s address. I take it that if one of your students said; “Well Sir, your theories just collapse with a bit of prodding”, you will pass the student with honours in the light of your standards. I

In regards to Building No 7 may i suggest David Ray Griffin’s latest book; “The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center(sic) &. Why the final report about 9/11 is unscientific and false”. [2009. Olive Press] May respectfully opine, that you are facing extreme embarrassment if you maintain your stated unsubstantiated opinion/s in front of those of your students who should happen to read Mr. Griffin’s book. (and the many other he has written on the subject) It will be in interesting to see you ‘prod’ Griffin’s book and see if his analysis collapses, try it!

There are many avenues for further study on 9.11. I suggest you start at http://www.patriotsquestion9/11.com and the architects and engineers site at AE911truth.org. Keep up to date by a few weekly peaks at 911.blogger.com.

I wish you well with your doctorate and trust that some of the above observations will make your thesis at least worth the outcome expected by you.

Yours Sincerely,

B Antcliffe.
Member: Lawyers for 911 truth. Political Leaders for 9/11 truth.

PS: John ((John Bursill, the organiser of the Richard Gage tour in Australia and New Zealand.)), Cannot locate Fitzsimons or NZ Herald, e-mail perhaps when this goes round someone will send it on, Ta.

—

Thank you for your interesting but just a little disjointed e-mail. A few points:

In considering your doctorate on conspiracy theories perhaps you would wish to include in your studies the following points:

Prosecutors on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen present conspiracy theories to juries in the criminal jurisdictions every day in commonwealth countries. Until such time as a jury convicts then it is a conspiracy theory.

Juries consider the evidence presented in a balanced and impartial objective manner, as is their duty, during their deliberations.

There are many theories that do not stand up considering the evidence and an acquittal should follow.

I am well aware of charges, as well as successful convictions, for Criminal Conspiracies. Everyone knows that Conspiracies occur; the question, certainly salient here, is whether the charge of Conspiracy is true in this particular case.

I find it offensive for you to infer that I have been naive in studying the ‘9/11 mass murders’ and/or meeting with Mr. Gage, for example.

Actually, you are inferring that. I merely said Jeanette Fitzsimmons was naive in her endorsement.

Actually, I have not only had him in my home in Sydney, but also; Frank Legge, Professor Steven Jones, Lt. Col. (ret) Bob Bowman and Yuki Fujita from the Japanese Parliament. Yuki is now in government with his party. Perhaps if you spent some time with some of these honourable people you would moderate your accusations.

As an epistemologist I am concerned with whether people hold beliefs formed due to reliable processes; it matters not one whit whether they are good, honourable, et cetera; if they hold specious beliefs, then they can be called to account on that.

Sir, you reference to anti-Semitism is, may I suggest is an attempt to smear respected persons and is an unlearned comment intended to somehow deride thinking people.

As a lawyer I would expect you to read documents carefully and notice what is a direct quote, what is an associated comment and what is an inference. You have taken an associated comment and missed its relevance to the rest of the article.

Matthew

Well, due to my contribution to this little Herald article I am getting e-mails and comments here, there and everywhere on what I might have said, implied, meant, been misquoted on and the like.

So I’d like to offer a few clarifications.

I hope that clears everything up for you. Expect to here my thought on the presentation on next week’s ‘The Dentith Files.’

So, on November the 21st, Richard Gage will be speaking in Wellington, advocating truth in architecture, which will lead to, apparently, a new official story about 9/11.

The presentation is a free event at Te Papa, the nation’s national museum. Now, it seems anyone can book a room at Te Papa and that someone is the person or persons who run the NZ911Truth website ((The website doesn’t have much in the way of useful or informative content (aside from linkage), although the Says who page has an interesting quote from the leader of the Greens, Jeanette Fitzsimons. I suspect that it might be unfair to make much of it without seeing the actual question she was asked, but still…)).

I’m not sure what to think about the talk; I suspect I’d have less issue with it if it weren’t occurring at the national museum. Museums are meant to be (even though sometimes they are not) repositories of facts ((I’m tempted to put that word in quotes.)) and if they are to play host to talks or presentations challenging the status quo then I’d like that challenge to be something that survives even the most casual scrutiny.

I suspect the problem, for me at least, is that the moral and intellectual responsibility that should be associated with such talks, which are often defended under the rubric of “the freedom of speech,” is in the process of being eroded away. It isn’t enough to say “We have the right to be heard!;” there is an associated duty of dealing with the consequences of what is said.

Now, I realise that a lot of the 9/11 Truthers really do think there are serious issues with the official theory of 9/11 and that they feel the need to air these issues in public; they feel they have a moral responsibility to act ((Although some of those actions, including the hounding of the family members of the victims of 9/11, are clearly immoral.)). However moral imperative isn’t warranted when you consider the epistemic duties holders of alternative theories must shoulder when presenting such hypotheses to the public. These alternative explanations of the events of the 11th of September, 2001, are elaborate houses of cards (I use the plural here because there isn’t a consistent counter-narrative to 9/11), built on the shakiest of foundations. You cannot just assert these theories on the basis of “Well, I think they’re plausible” if they do not survive scrutiny.

So… I’m angling to get some funding to travel down and attend the talk. I’m also curious as to how the interview with Kim Hill has been set up; who set it up, who is advising her, and so forth. I’ll keep my weather eye open on this, although I am somewhat swamped with paper writing duties, which is, curiously enough, all about defending mere politically endorsed theories when they are contrasted with mere Conspiracy Theories.

More news as it comes to hand.

So, the BBC, in its wisdom, has an episode of ‘The Conspiracy Files’ devoted to the man behind ‘The Ripple Effect.’ I know this because the internet reports on such things, and the BBC, in its promotional glory, has a page telling us about the episode. What is especially great are the comments, for they are of the ‘I’m not a Conspiracy Theorist, but…’ variety.

It is interesting that both the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks occurred at times when the political leader of the nation was suffering in public opinion, and that both these attacks have enabled the governments involved to introduce draconian measures in the name of “security”. Whilst I do not actually believe that the governments were directly involved in either of these attacks (or at least I pray they were not), I am not so sure that they did not consciously ignore critical intelligence and thus allow the events to come to pass.
Bryan Wallbridge, Boston, Lincolnshire

is fried gold (it’s the variation on the so-called ‘Conventry Excuse’ (my terminology)), but the one I like the most is:

Well, I’m not into conspiracy theories but it happens to be completely true that the security services in both New York on 9/11 and London on 7/7 were running mock terrorist attack exercises. Make of that what you will.
Mike, Corby

Which is just fantastic. It’s a little like my ‘favourite’ tactic of a certain class of people who go ‘I’m not a racist, but…’ where what follows after the ‘but’ is almost always racist ((I sometimes like to say at parties something along the lines of ‘I’m not a racist, but I do enjoy watching ‘Lost’.’ It tends to confuse.)). “I’m not a Conspiracy Theorist,” says Mike, “but…”

You’re not fooling anyone.

9/11 Cult watch has reviewed the documentary here. I am endeavouring to obtain a copy for my archives.

I read a lot, I watch a lot, I go to talks a lot, and yet I still can’t do any of these things in sufficient quantity (let alone quality) to claim I have a grip on everything that is `going down’ in Conspiracy Theory research. Thus I’m fascinated by this review-cum-commentary on Ron Suskind’s book The Way of the World.’

Suskind quotes Inkster (who liaised with key Iraqi defector Tahir Habbush, head of intelligence no less) as saying, quite clearly, that both the Bush and Blair regimes knew, before the invasion, that Iraq had no WMDs. Again, no surprise here, and backs up a point we at 9/11 cultwatch have long made, that the fabrication of WMD evidence leading to a spurious war is in itself a sufficient reason, if you are so inclined, for both Blair & Bush to be arraigned as ‘war criminals’–you don’t need imaginary fairytales about 9/11, the War in Iraq is sufficient to make them (metaphorically) swing from the yard arm.

This is, of course, a Conspiracy Theory (it, at least, presents a rival to the received view that the UK and USA administrations went into Iraq believing there were WMDs being produced and stored by Saddam Hussein’s regime), but because it’s a widely held Conspiracy Theory we’ve begun to treat the official account as the epistemically dubious one and, and this seems important, we don’t like other (epistemically dubious?) Conspiracy Theories to detract from the one we all seem to agree upon.

I’m sure there’s more to be said about this but now is not the time; I have to get ready to teach the last lecture in my `Conspiracy Theories’ course.