Why and How I Talk about 9/11

ANGLO AMERICA, 26 Sep 2016

Emanuel E. Garcia, MD | Intrepid Report – TRANSCEND Media Service

20 Sep 2016 – In my darker moments I sometimes wonder what’s worse: our age of an endless ‘war on terror’ ushered in by the events of September 11, 2001, or the fact that for the rest of my life I will be subjected to yearly anniversary commemorations of those events, replete with jingoistic absurdities.

It’s impossible to converse at any gathering of people anywhere about politics and the new world order without mentioning 9/11: sooner or later, someone, somebody, whoever, wherever, will bring it up, and sooner or later I will decide whether to bite my tongue or to attempt to present my views, which are at variance with the 9/11 Commission Report. So the question arises: how can I best discuss this heinous catastrophe without being written off as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or ‘madman’?

At this stage of my life I am long past the desire to change or even advise people—even when my advice appears to be sought. But I am still not yet beyond the belief that truth may have its day, if not now, then at some point in the future, so I generally choose to describe why the official story should be questioned and how such questioning will naturally lead to a more realistic assessment of the powers of the State.

I describe how I had first learned of the plane crashes on the day, from a patient who asked to cut short our meeting. Hitherto, I had been working in my office in Philadelphia, oblivious to the news. I rushed out and headed for the local Starbucks, where I thought to engage with my fellow citizens and figure out what was going on. No such luck. Center City Philadelphia was a ghost town: nothing was open, everyone had left work early, and as I myself walked home I merely wondered “Where was the Air Force, where was our air defence?” Perhaps one hijacked plane might have sneaked through its net, but four?

Safely ensconced at home I then watched the many replays of the jets crashing into WTC 1 and 2, registering horror and disbelief, but it was only a year or two later that I pondered the destruction of WTC 7, which was NOT hit by a jet. And here is where I am usually met with a quizzical look, because very many people to this day have no knowledge about WTC 7.

So I have ‘honed’ my discussion to several talking points, as indicated below, following what we call in medicine the principle of Occam’s razor, that is, limiting myself to some very basic and relatively incontrovertible details, and creating a simple narrative based upon them.

  1. Why and how could the United States Air Defence system have disappeared so thoroughly?
  2. How could WTC 7, which was not hit by a jet, have collapsed onto its own footprint as only buildings in controlled demolitions are capable of?
  3. If you suspect that WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, then look at the collapses of the Twin Towers: why didn’t they sway or topple? How could such massive structures have come down in freefall, nearly as quickly as an unhindered bowling ball might drop?
  4. How could passenger jets have been flown with such pinpoint accuracy into the Towers and particularly into the Pentagon, which required a manoeuvre that would have been the envy of the greatest flight pilot at the helm of a fighter jet?
  5. Why did the president and vice president of the United States insist upon no recording or formal transcription of their testimony before the 911 Commission, and why did they place such strict limits on their testimony, agreeing to meet only with the panel’s top two officials, with Mr. Bush testifying for only an hour?
  6. And by the way, what does one think of the coincidental discovery of an alleged hijacker’s passport less than a week later, two blocks from the towers?

It is generally at this point that I stop. Tempted as I may be to speak about thermite and molten metal and the melting point of steel, I believe that these are better left for real experts to discuss, so I refer my acquaintances to the books of David Ray Griffin and the website of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. As someone with a scanty knowledge of physics, I can understand that others would glaze over at the mention of the structural properties of high-rise buildings.

And in response to the inevitable question, why would a government do such a thing? I would ask them to consider who has benefited from the resultant diminution of citizen rights at home and the expansion of endless war abroad, and to read a little about the history of empires. Athens, Rome, Persia, the Ottomans, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, the United States: to vary a phrase of Tolstoy’s, they are all alike. They are all capable of the most heinous of deeds grown from the richly terrible soil of Power.

_____________________________

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born poet, novelist and physician who now resides in New Zealand. He may be contacted at emanuelegarcia@gmail.com. He likes to describe himself as a coincidence rather than conspiracy theorist.

Go to Original – intrepidreport.com

 

Share or download this article:


DISCLAIMER: In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


10 Responses to “Why and How I Talk about 9/11”

  1. Leejah Singh says:

    Re-run of the inane conspiracy stuff Mr Kohls presented two weeks ago. And as before – the only “winner” from focus on this junk is the group of people that would like to burrow discussions about the consequences of 911. The then US government.

  2. Gary Corseri says:

    Thanks for posting this here, Mr. Garcia.

    I strongly disagree with Leejah Singh who paints your work and Mr. Kohl’s together (I admit I missed his column on this) as “inane conspiracy stuff” and “this junk.” Leejah seems to think that your legitimate questions distract attention (“burrow discussions”–a colorful phrase!)from the real “consequences of 911. The then US government.” I don’t see it that way. Rather, your 6 “basic” and “incontrovertible details” provide focal points for deeper “burrowing,” or, if one prefers a different metaphor, springboards to encourage higher reasoning and exploration. Proposing these basic questions is not to exonerate the US government from “the consequences of 911.”

    “History is an agreed-upon myth,” Napoleon said. We grow by questioning the fables of our childhood. We find that some can still apply, and some cannot. Thus we weave the tapestry of our lives, our understanding. When we stop asking questions, when we stop challenging, we rigidify, break apart in strong gusts of wind, and die.

    • Leejah Singh says:

      Dear Mr Corseri

      The problem with this conspiracy stuff is not that it asks questions. The problem is that it promotes a way of thinking: including an “authorization” of non-scientific methods and arguments and (though you may deny it) moves focus from much more important stuff. Conspiracy theories such is the ones Garcia and Kohls promote may be tempting for those with Anti-US leanings, but the mechanism in conspiracy theories and -thinking are the exact same ones that has been used – and are being used – by war mongers, dictators and snake-oil quacks down through the years. I.e. a set of methods to suppress science, knowledge, reason and by implication humanity. The path from, say, the 911inside-job theories to the anti-vaccine theories is short and broad.

      I certainly encourage people to question authority – but so it scientifically in the name and with the tools of reason and scepticism. And use the with equal dilligence towards conspiracy web sites and their “evidence”.

      Science, reason and scepticism is not an option for humanity. It is a necessity.

      • Leejah Singh, I find it uncanny that you confront two medical doctors–Kohls and Garcia–as ‘unscientific.’ They are not exactly plumbers, farmers or miners editorializing about subjects outside their fields of study/expertise. What about you? Your name sounds Indian or Pakistani, the extent of my distant acquaintance with you.

        You have been for quite some time characterizing TMS (and me by association) as gullible advocates of what YOU call conspiracy theories. I don’t mind because I don’t know you, your credentials; as you know ours. But what transpires the most from your comments is that you are an uncompromising, unthinking, biased defender of the American empire (not the American Republic, mind you) and their doings around the planet however destructive, self-serving, exploitative, manipulative, cruel those doings may be–and are. Why is that? Your love of science? Give me a break, would you? You do a verbal inter-play with scientific terms and jargon clearly to confuse the issue–but very badly at that.

        I have news for you: I don’t need ‘authorization’ from any thinking-talking heads to exercise my life-given ability to do my own reasoning on any matter. The FACTS about 911 are on the table for any real THINKING HEAD to see, analyze and reach rational conclusions not blinded by ideologies or affiliations, what seems to be your case. Against facts there are no arguments, such the ones you are trying to impose here.

        By the way, the myth of separating reason from emotion in reaching ‘rational’ conclusions is far from reality. Read some poetry and you will see it–if you have the mind to understand poetry, which I doubt.

  3. Leejah Singh says:

    Dear Mr Rosa

    Sorry for not being able to reply directly in thread to your reply to me – for some reason the “Reply button” is not visible under your comment, as it is under the others.

    I’m Indian by the way. But consider my self to be a global citizan just as much as Indian.

    I do not confront the gentlemen for being doctors, but nor do I bow to authority in name, title or profession alone, if this authoriy comes without reason, arguments and proof. That by the way, rahter than your title or education, is a cornerstone of real authority (echoing Einstein’s view).

    I’m an a trained structural engineer mainly working with earthquake resistant structures, and that led me into the Indian Sceptics society. Mainly because too many people were and are killed because they rely more on superstition than on science. I can discuss this and the examples for hours if your are interested.

    I’m not saying you need “authorization”, just that when somebody re-post or support undocumented conspiracy theories _they_ lend authority to that.

    I don’t really understand the rest of your mail. Are you arguing that the points raised by Mr’s Kohls and Corseri are “scientific” and well documented? I’m sorry, they are not.

  4. Emanuel E Garcia says:

    Let’s not forget that the official account of 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory, and it’s a conspiracy theory that is impossibly ludicrous.

    • Leejah Singh says:

      Dear Mr Garcia

      Whether the official account is a CT or not, or missing the full picture or not, it is certainly not even close to the inside-job theories when it comes to being implausible or impossible.

      The whole “controlled demolition” hypothesis is based on lack of understanding how very large buildings collapse, lack of understanding fundamental physisc and structural engineering and on fantasizing that it is possible and logical to design a completely improbable conspiracy with several thousand involved, with inane ideas about switched planes and so on. None that makes the sligtest sense from a logical point of view.

      Occams Razor is always a good guide.

  5. rosemerry says:

    The official story is obviously false and the points raised by so many people have value.
    The five minute film of Corbett “9/11-a conspiracy theory”, readily available online, makes a simple and powerful point.
    How Mr Singh can denigrate the points about the buildings’ collapse, an event that never happened before or since to steel framed buildings damaged by fire, is amazing.

    • Thomas Krogh says:

      rosemerry

      “The official story is obviously false and the points raised by so many people have value.”

      Uhm ok. You are very welcome to comment on the points I have earlier pointed oiut as being proved falsehoods and lies in Gary Kohls’ article 2 weeks ago. For some reason he ddin’t dare refute those himself…

      “The five minute film of Corbett “9/11-a conspiracy theory”, readily available online, makes a simple and powerful point.”

      A point strong on insinuation, but without a thread of evidence…

      “How Mr Singh can denigrate the points about the buildings’ collapse, an event that never happened before or since to steel framed buildings damaged by fire, is amazing.”

      So no steel framed building has ever collapsed before 911? Sure?? :-D

      Do tell us about the mechanics of why the WTC towers couldn’t or shouldn’t collapse. I’d like to learn the *technical* and *engineering* arguments. Not the mindless videos.

      • Emanuel E. Garcia, MD says:

        Watch the collapse of WTC 7. That’s all you need to know.