Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Open Letter to TCJ, re: 9/11 Graphic Novel Review

I recently posted this bit on the TCJ messboard.It's response to an incredibly idiotic review by Kent Worcester.
It can be found here.

"As one who’s studied 911 and the events surrounding it, I read with great interest Kent Worcesters’ review of the 911 REPORT : A Graphic Adaptation, printed in TCJ #279 .
Forgive my late response; I only just recieved the issue .
I must state that I did not expect Mr. Worcesters’ piece to comment on the well-founded controversy surrounding the official story of 911. I expected a pretty dry assessment of the volume in the context of comic book criticism, and that’s mostly what we got , and that’s fine. Problem is, when one takes on a book with such historical wieght, such direct political and social relevance, that person takes on with it a responsibility that goes beyond comics. Like any other criticism of similar import, I’d expect at least some cursory explanation of the method by which this narrative was created. How did this narrative come to be, exactly? The history of the commission was not remarked on ; that it’s very creation was vehemently opposed by our beloved “decider” and his co-horts, Only after the vocal insistence of family members of victims did they agree to the foundation of the comission, that their first choice for comission head was good ‘ol Doc Kissinger ( who, after a round of questions from the families of victims felt compelled to redact himself from the board due to a very apparent conflict of interest, unable to answer a question about wether or not he counts any Saudi royalty or members of the Bin Laden family as clients..).Philip Zelikow , a member of Bush the firsts’ administration , co-author of a book with Condi Rice and member of this presidents Foreign Intelligence Advisory board, was selected as the “Executive Director” of the commission and thereby the behind-the-scenes steering committee of one. They went on to hand-select each member of the board, who seemed only vaugely annoyed that Bush and Cheney, Condi Rice,etc. refused to testify under oath, with the added stipulation that no official record be taken of their testimony. Requests for information were routinely spurned by many involved parties. I could go on and on.
And what is the story told in the 911 REPORT? Where Mr. Worcester failed , I’ll pick it up; It is nothing but the streamlined version of narrative cobbled-together by various cherry-picked testimonies.It does not include any mention of the numerous contradictions found in the actual 911 report, contradictory testimonies often from the same individual. Let’s be clear; this narrative is the commissions attempt at creating a viable story, with any and all contradictory information simply left out. No mention is made of the third collapse of that day , that of WTC7, for instance. Is this what you mean by “instructional”, Mr. Worcester? It’s as “instructional” as a prosecutors’ recreation of events in a murder trial. It is, like the ‘conspiracy” theories you self-righteously dismiss , just another theory. Unlike the truly relevant and incisive conspiracy theories, the ones that simply point out the contradictions and ask tough questions , this official conspiracy theory was designed for a very specific purpose; to present the cleanest narrative of 911 possible, the one that ruffles the fewest feathers.
Yet another failure , in my opinion, is Mr. Worcesters’ lack of comment on the intended audience. Might it be relevant to question who the target demographic for such a comic book might be? Is it safe to assume that the target might be children? I can only guess that this book might seem a very attractive choice for those parents/adults looking for a good gift for the comic-reading kids in their life; it isn’t, after all, some flashy fantasy ( or is it?), it’s something that might be useful, educational, even “instructional”.
The final paragraph is the truly inciteful one, and it seems intended as such. Gears shift with a screech and we’re in Andy Rooney, nieghborhood op-ed turf:

“What if the 911 plot was hatched at Langley rather than in an Al-Qaeda training camp? Are comics industry veterans Jacobson and Colon part of a larger conspiracy to frame radical Muslims and instigate global resource wars? As someone who witnessed the second plane smash into South Tower (and it was definitely a plane, not a missile), I have a hard time swallowing some of the more dramatic claims that have been advanced in documentaries and websites about 911. A few days after the attacks, an undergraduate gravely confided to me that “no Jews” died in the towers. The fact that the earliest conspiracy theories were anti-Semitic and contradicted my own experiences and observations, makes me weary of putative theories hat link policymakers to controlled explosions and aircraft hijacking. Whatever happened to Occams’ Razor?”

That Mr. Worcester goes on to conflate , implicitly, anyone who questions the official narrative ve of 911 with anti-Semites and tin-foil hat wearers because, well, he heard some college kid say something anti-Semitic, therefore the “first” 911 “conspiracies” were too.
I’m glad the opinions of eighteen to twenty-two year olds doesn’t have such an effect on me. I’d be at da club instead of the library. I’m disturbed at how one who employs such logic is in the ostensible position of educating at the collegiate level.
Does Mr. Worcester honestly think us ‘conspiracy nuts’ would have Colon and Jacobson in an underground bunker, getting top-secret info from Bin Laden and Cheney so they can make a more effective comical book? I doubt it. It’s an easy, talk-jock maneuver.
I’m sure it seemed like a good gig for these guys, one that might help out against the Brown Peril and get their names in the NY Post, nothing more.
The first “conspiracy theories” related to 911 in fact occurred months before 911, when various alternative media researchers, including radio host Alex Jones, stated that elements of our government were in the process of manufacturing a terror attack that will be blamed on their “patsy”, Osama Bin Laden. A video of this can be viewed online( *).
A few “theories” after 911 probably did include vaguely anti-Israeli sentiments, but conflating those with every other theory, without looking seriously at their logic, is an ignorant, knee-jerk response, one that , in a self-serving manner, confirms ones own bias.
It’s like you imagine a single team, hiding in the background who get together and decide which new crazy theory they present next. Ridiculous. The diversity of opinion, background, religion, race, etc. in the 911 Truth movement is as diverse as America itself. Similarly, the “missile hit the tower” theory, as far as I can tell, isn’t a theory at all. I’ve never heard or read this before you stated it. I thought I was up on all this too. Where did you hear this one Mr. Worcester? It seems you’ve chosen two very flammable straw-men ( one of which you may have invented whole-cloth) to represent the 911 truth movement. It’s an easy trick and it belies your all too apparent , shamelessly ignorant malice.
From TIME :
“A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality. “ (**)
Is this some sort of Anti-Semitic conspiracy that we’re all in on , Mr. Worcester? What all of these people agree on is very simple; we do not know the truth about what happened on that day, nor the events leading up to it. And we, as free-thinking adults, need to open new, effective investigations that do not avoid potentially damaging outcomes.It’s very, very simple.
I invite those of you who’re interested in exploring the very real and very relevant questions regarding the official story of 9/11 to view 9/11: Myth and Reality Featuring David Ray Griffith (***), a renowned professor of theology, who presents a very clear and concise speech on the subject. Even Kent should give it a watch, that is, if he’s not too busy on hold with the ADL, exposing the anti-Semitic conspiracy.

* http://tinyurl.com/2oxbq9

** http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html

*** http://tinyurl.com/2nzpbp

Note: I am unable to get online very often- usually for an hour or so every other day, so I might not be able to respond in a timely manner to questions or comments."

WTC 7 Collapse:


D.R.G with Demonic Hack:

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't buy into any of that NWO, Sept 11 was an inside job crap. Setting up explosives for buildings of that size normally takes weeks, and that on a building that been stripped to bare bones. What's your theory on how the G-men were able to set-up the explosives that demolished the WTC in just one weekend? That's just one of my questions to those theories.

Archie Nixon said...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12131349/911_truth_bald_regurgitation_of_another_bombing_conspiracy/1

"...the usual explanation for the "pulling" of WTC-7: "WTC 7 was allowed to be taken down so it would destroy evidence of the greatest crime in American history," insists one of many 9/11 Truth sites.

I think this last contention has to be the absolute funniest detail in all 9/11 lore -- the contention that the CIA or whoever destroyed a whole building to get rid of the "evidence" of the 9/11 plot, which many alleged was masterminded from the CIA offices in WTC-7. The same people who complain endlessly that they can't get the evidence they need without subpoena power imagine that the Central Intelligence Agency somehow needs to destroy its own buildings in order to keep its "secret plans" (contained in a Mission Impossible -style folder, no doubt!) from leaking to . . . the 9/11 Truth movement! Why would the CIA need to do that, if they don't even need a shredder -- shit, not even a four-dollar Master Lock -- to keep their 9/11 secrets hidden now?

And what evidence could possibly exist that would be so unwieldy that it would require the destruction of an entire building to be rid of? What, did the CIA carve its 9/11 plans in a 7,000-pound slab of New Hampshire granite in the WTC-7 basement? Were they doodled on the CIA bathroom stalls? Here I sit, brokenhearted. Came to shit, but only . . . planned controlled demolition of the World Trade Center! Seriously, what "evidence" had to go? And why wouldn't they just remove it surreptitiously, rather than blowing up a gazillion-dollar building on live international television, leaving the rubble to the mercy of firemen and whoever else was down there?"

seantiger said...

I saw a good documentary recently "9/11 Revisited V2"

It brings up some very interesting questions. Especially regarding the collapse of WTC 7 and the footage of the buildings owner, a Mr Silverstein, saying on film that he gave the order for buiding 7 to "come down". The building fell exactly like the twin towers, and you have an admission form the buildings owner that it was brought down by controlled demolition.
This also raises the question of how did a whole team of demolition experts rig up an entire building with explosives (whilst the other two towers were collapsing mind you) in such a short amount of time? The 9/11 Commisiion ignored the collapse of WTC 7 completely.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, the documntary brings up so many more questions.

Luke P. said...

I'm not here to argue my case; there clearly are relevant, real questions that cast into doubt the official story of 911.
Any fool can see this.
I'm especially not going to respond to people who post anonymously.

Luke P. said...

We don't know why WTC7 was destrotyed- That's the point!
The official story is completely unbeleivable; you don't have to believe in any alternate theory to recognize this, to disbelieve the official story. It's very simple, children.

Archie Nixon said...

"you don't have to believe in any alternate theory to recognize this, to disbelieve the official story."

Yeah, that certainly makes it a lot more convenient, doesn't it? It's a lot easier when you don't have to come up with anything more plausible --and god knows you can't.