|
Can Anything Be Done?
|
Twan
|
Aug 27, 2006 16:29 PDT
|
<<=====
Can Anything Be Done?
By Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14718.htm
08/27/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Many readers have praised me
for my courage in broaching taboo subjects and stating obvious truths.
Others denounce me for “being unpatriotic and distrusting our
government.” One reader, Susan Hartman, wrote to me that I was obviously
in the pay of Islamic Jihadists and that she had reported me to the FBI.
Despite the lack of evidence to support their belief, a number of
readers remain confident that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction and that America narrowly missed being annihilated. These
readers know for a fact that Hussein had WMD, because “the President
would know, and he wouldn’t lie.”
In other words, whatever Bush says is true, and all who doubt him are
unpatriotic. “You are with us or against us.” The facts be damned. There
are a large number of Susan Hartmans in the body politic.
A group of scientists, engineers, and university professors are trying
to start a debate about the collapse of the three World Trade Center
buildings. I reported one of their findings: There is an inconsistency
between the speed with which the buildings collapsed and the “pancaking
theory” used to explain the collapse. Another way of putting the problem
is that there seems to be a massive energy deficit in the explanation
that the buildings fell as a result of gravitational energy. There
simply was not sufficient gravitational energy to produce the results.
For reporting a scientific finding, I was called a “conspiracy
theorist.” Only in America is scientific analysis seen as conspiracy
theory and government lies as truth.
Applications of the laws of physics and scientific calculations can be
reviewed and checked by other scientists. Scientists, like the rest of
us, can make mistakes. However, questions raised about the collapse of
the WTC buildings are not engaged but ignored.
The 9/11 scholars findings seem to be in sync with public opinion. Polls
show that more than one-third and as much as one-half of the American
public does not believe the government’s 9/11 story.
The public doesn’t believe the John F. Kennedy assassination story
either. Nevertheless, experts who point out problems in the official
story are still called “conspiracy theorists” even though a large
percentage of the people share their doubts.
I think the reason so many Americans do not believe the Kennedy story
told by the Warren Commission and the 9/11 story told by the 9/11
Commission is not because Americans are knowledgeable about ballistics
or physics, or know how to do energy calculations, but because the
stories contain too many unusual happenings, too many oddities.
In the Kennedy case doubts are raised by such things as an improbable
bullet trajectory, the against-all-procedures absence of Secret Service
agents from the rear and sides of Kennedy’s limo, the inexplicable
access of an unauthorized armed civilian, Jack Ruby, who was able to
assassinate Oswald inside the jail before Oswald could be questioned.
Online at http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/localnews/ci_4213295
there is a report that two scientists, Pat Grant and Erik Randich, at
the Forensic Science Center of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory have
discredited the reliability of the “neutron activation” analysis, which
was used to “prove” that all the recovered bullet fragments came from
Oswald’s shots. Courts no longer accept as evidence and the FBI no
longer uses the analysis that was used to close the Oswald case.
Any one of these things would be an oddity. The combination of oddities
becomes inexplicable, a statistical impossibility.
The same with the explanation of 9/11. Powerfully constructed buildings
collapse when there is no source of the required energy to do the job. A
large 757 hits the Pentagon but leaves a small hole, and there is no
sign of wings, engines, tail or fuselage. Every air control and military
procedure fails, and hijacked airliners are not intercepted by jet
fighters. The alleged hijackers’ names apparently are not on the
passenger lists, and some of the alleged hijackers have been found alive
and well in Saudi Arabia. Dr. Thomas R. Olmstead used the Freedom of
Information Act to get a copy of the autopsy list of American Airlines
flight 77, and he reports that there are no Arabic names on the list.
My point is a simple one. Attentive people, even if they are not
scientifically literate, can sense when there are too many oddities for
an explanation to be believable.
If deception is sensed, there is a receptive audience when experts or
film makers speak. Denouncing inconvenient facts as “conspiracy
theories” is a way of suppressing debate and investigation.
This itself is telling. If the official explanations are safe, their
proponents should welcome the opportunity to show again and again that
the explanations can stand all challenges. Instead, the second a
challenge shows its head, it is branded a “conspiracy theory.” That
tells me that the official explanations can stand no challenge.
Don’t ask me who killed Kennedy and why, and don’t ask me who was behind
the 9/11 attack or what brought the three WTC buildings down. My
position is a simple one. The official accounts are too improbable to be
believable.
I won’t believe them until the government can explain where the energy
came from to bring down the three WTC buildings. With the demise of the
“single bullet” theory, there seems to be no verification of Oswald’s
magical shooting.
It seems to me that the real conspiracy theories are the explanations
that are overweighted with improbabilities.
Readers ask me what can we do? We can do very little as we have lost
control over our government. Elections, even if not stolen, change very
little. Government got free of our control when we forgot the teaching
of our Founding Fathers that government is always the greatest threat to
our liberty.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan
administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal
editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is
coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
=====>>
|
|
 |
|
