Saturday, August 15, 2009

The Thinking (Wo)Man's Guide to 9-11, Part 2

Listen to or download this radio program now (192 kbps HiFi -- 41 MB)
Listen to or download this radio program now (40 kbps MedFi -- 8.5 MB)
List all . . . and listen to or download any . . . installments

This week in New World Notes, radio program #77, August 18:

Smoke (at top) and finely-pulverized concrete (center). Click to enlarge.

We conclude our two-part series, which is an introduction to the unanswered questions of the 9-11 attacks, designed for listeners who dislike "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy buffs."

This week, we'll hear Paul Zarembka, a professor of business and economics and editor of a book by scholars on various aspects of the 9-11 attacks. Zarembka's own chapter of the book concerns the money-flow. On the show, though, he speaks compellingly of the government's surprisingly rapid and highly dubious identification of the 19 alleged hijackers.

Paul Zarembka

Why "dubious"? For one, after 9-11, ten of these people (not just people with the same name) presented themselves to news media offices or American embassies, asserting that they were neither scorched nor bruised, let alone dead. And there are many other problems with the identifications.

At last it can be told!

Then I present the results of an informal written survey I conducted a few months ago, a survey of attitudes towards the official government/media version of who/what/when/where/why/how. OK, not why: Nobody believes the Official (or at least W.'s) Version of that: Because "they hate our freedom."

Finely-pulverized concrete blanketed Manhattan. Caustic,
highly alkaline, highly toxic. On White House orders, the EPA lied,
falsely announcing that the air was safe to breathe. Many rescue
workers and others are now dead, dying, or seriously impaired
from lung disease. Some estimate that more will die from breathing
the poisoned air than died in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

The survey found some Believers and many Doubters. The Doubters confirmed Zarembka's remarks that people who reject the Official Version do so for different reasons. The survey was not multiple-choice: it asked respondents to reply in their own words. Sorting the results later, I found that six reasons for disbelief were cited more often than others. In no particular order, they are the

  • physics of the building collapses
  • lack of effective air defense
  • suspicious stock-option purchases that suggest prior knowledge
  • questionable identification of the hijackers
  • odd pattern of physical evidence at the Pentagon
  • principle of cui bono? (who benefits?)

I briefly discuss each of these six and read selected responses from the show's listeners.

Song played: David Rovics, Reichstag Fire

"Salomon Brothers building" is WTC7, where Salomon was a tenant. Both
BBC and CNN announced the collapse roughly an hour ahead of time. CNN's
anchor interrupted his phone interview with Israel PM Peres to announce
the collapse. In both live newscasts, through the window behind the News
personality, viewers could see WTC7 standing proudly. CNN's man
stumbled verbally when
he saw it too.

Coming soon (dates of WWUH Tuesday broadcast shown):

  • August 25--Public Education: Failure or All-Too-Successful? -- J.T. Gatto (Part 3) vs. Jonathan Kozol
  • September 1--What Does Woman Want?

Catch New World Notes (all times Eastern):

WTC 7, across the street from the other buildings of the
World Trade Center complex. In this photo, the darker
side of WTC7 faces
away from the rest of the complex.

The blog's previous entry (scroll down) has some nice news footage of the collapse of Building 7, with voice-over commentary by Dan Rather.

No comments: