Followers

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

"Hansen: Official 9/11 story is hooey, critic maintains"... But What Does Hansen Think?

In an editorial yesterday, Marc Hansen, a columnist for the Des Moines Register, wrote the following:

David Ray Griffin comes to Drake University on April 23 to tell us why the official explanation for the 9/11 attack on the United States doesn't hold water.

A theologian, philosopher of religion and professor emeritus at California's Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, Griffin has been at it for about seven years now and says he won't stop until the government conducts a new, impartial, independent investigation...

...A few years ago, Popular Mechanics magazine devoted an issue to debunking 9/11 "myths." The editor-in-chief says the "Truthers" have been suckered by "the myth of hyper-competence" as it pertains to the military's ability to bring down hijacked planes.

The magazine brought together nine researchers and reporters and consulted more than 70 professionals from aviation, engineering, the military and other disciplines.

They investigated 16 of the "most prevalent claims" and concluded they were false. And yet Griffin's side seems to be the one that's growing.

"Healthy skepticism," Popular Mechanics wrote, seems to have "curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories. ... As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States."

Griffin responded by taking a whack at debunking the debunkers. And on it goes.
On it goes Mr. Hansen says, who knows who is right. Well, both are at times, but for this excercise we'll concern ourselves with overall.

Hansen points out that Griffin used to go along with the official story, but doesn't any longer due to such things as learning about nanothermite, (Hansen's words here) "a high-tech explosive only recently identified in the World Trade Center dust by a group of international scientists."

But ultimately, he informs us that Griffin cannot prove his theory that "9/11 was an inside job led by Dick Cheney." Remove the part about Cheney and I think the former fact you relayed about the nanothermite pretty well proves 9/11 was an inside job all by itself Mr. Hansen.

This begs a few questions in my mind...

Are you trying to appear objective and still get the facts out there? If so, I suggest you just come out with your true thoughts. It seems rather silly to state that scientists found the explosives, but that proof doesn't exist that 9/11 was an inside job.

Conversely, I wonder if you were trying to appear objective, but fall on the debunking side of the tracks.

Did you just mean to quote Griffin regarding the nanothermite recently being discovered by scientists? If so, bringing up the Popular Mechanics magazine piece from 2005 in no way sheds doubt on a peer-reviewed scientific paper from 2009!

Either way, it's journalistic objectivity. I get it. Let the people decide. The facts speak for themselves. I couldn't agree more.