RE: [Marxism] Marxism and Conspiracy

["Austin, Andrew" <austina@xxxxxxxx>]

________________________________

From: marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Louis Proyect
Sent: Fri 9/8/2006 7:41 PM
To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Marxism and Conspiracy

If we can get past the idiocy of the "controlled demolitions" crowd and agree 
that our differences are over that, we would be making progress as the 
psychiatrists say.

* * * 

Louis,

What do you say to a person who says, "I saw a special on PBS and there the 
owner of the World Trade Center complex -- his name is Larry something or other 
-- and he says on there that he told authorities to pull Tower 7.   And in 
video of the collapse of Tower 7, you can hear the blasts on the videotape, see 
people's reaction to the blasts, and see them fleeing the area as the building 
comes down.  How did authorities get set up so quickly on the same day that 
Towers 1 and 2 came down to collapse Tower 7?  Why would the police let them 
collapse Tower 7 given that the whole area was a crime scene?  And if the 
building came down by controlled collapse, as claimed by the owner of the WTC 
complex -- and he ought to know since he said he told them to do it -- why does 
FEMA say it collapsed because of fire?  And, finally, why did the government 
let Popular Mechanics see photographs of Tower 7 collapse but no one else?  
What makes them so special?"

If you tell that person that they're an idiot, they are going to stop listening 
to you.  Why?  Because they know things like this (bear with me, I have a 
point): 

On August 23, 2006 KFNX-AM, Phoenix radio talk-show host Charles Goyette is 
interviewing Davin Coburn, senior research editor from Popular Mechanics.  
Charles Goyette is pressing Coburn on the matter of the collapse of Tower 7, 
and specifically questions him about the existence of photographic evidence 
that, according to Coburn, shows the condition of Tower 7 before its collapse 
on 9-11.  Maybe none of you have read the book Debunking 9/11 Myths, and 
perhaps most of you have no intention of reading it, but the book was brought 
up earlier as an authority on the events of 9-11, so I think the readers here 
might be interested in knowing more about it.  In that book, Coburn makes 
several references to photographs that the book does not show.  

Here is a transcript of the interview:

Popular Mechanics (PM) "Well ya know, here again, there's an interesting issue 
that you [Goyette] brought up before, we have seen (WTC-7) pictures, actually, 
they are pictures that are the property of the New York police department and 
other various governmental agencies, that we were not given permission to 
disseminate. And that gets back to your original question, I cannot speak for . 
. .

Goyette KFNX-AM But you got to see them, Popular Mechanics got to see them. But 
the average American citizen can't see them?

PM Correct.

Goyette Well that's a fine kettle of fish isn't it?

PM Yeah it certainly is, and that I guess gets back to, ya know, us trying to 
do our homework and having the authority to see the pictures though what we are 
allowed to show everyone else, what is chosen to become public domain isn't 
necessarily our . . .

Goyette Did you see them?

PM Yes.

Goyette Do we have to kill you now?

PM Let's hope not.

Goyette Well, I mean, explain it to me. What did you see there that I can't see?

PM Actually it was pretty much just what was described.

Goyette Well there must be something that would be dangerous for me as an 
American citizen or a voter to see.

PM I cannot . . ya know, tell you again, why that . . .

Goyette You're publishers. I mean if anybody's concerned about evidence in a 
criminal case or something they've done the worst possible thing, they showed 
it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM Right. And that was done for the purposes of our background research, that 
we could . . .

Goyette What about my background research? What about my background research? 
Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn't know they had different 
classes of citizens! You can't tell me it's because there's a criminal case 
because they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM I'm actually not telling you anything . . . I can't answer that question.

Goyette I know you can't . . . alright . . . let me go to the phones.

* End transcription * 

Surely you can see why people are asking questions, Louis.  If the authorties 
don't want to fuel the "conspiracy theories," then why do they withhold 
evidence that they say would put the matter to rest?  Why leave the whole 
explanation for the collapse of the towers to a Hearst Corporation publication? 
 Why does Popular Mechanics -- a magazine -- and now a book by the same authors 
of the Popular Mechanics article -- get a monopoly on the official explanation 
of the collapse but everybody else are "idiots"?  Is that acceptable to a 
rational person?  Not really.  And so people who are asking rational questions 
feel insulted when you talk about the "idiocy" of the "controlled demolitions 
crowd."  There are thousands upon thousands of people asking these questions.  
There are dozens of very distinguished scholars asking these questions.  They 
can't all be idiots.

What about me.  I have no position on the matter.  I honestly don't know the 
answer.  I am participating in this discussion because I want to defend the 
people who need to be convinced.  I appreciate their curiosity.  I believe that 
the need to be convinced lies at the heart of rational skepticism.  The 
government lies to the "idiots" constantly, as does the corporate media.  If 
the people who run this country expect the "idiots" to believe them, then why 
don't they release every scrap of evidence they have?  The culture of secrecy 
breeds distrust.  The culture of lying breeds frustration.  I mean, I don't 
trust my government.  Do you?  Do you really trust the writers at Popular 
Mechanics? 

Andrew


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism