By Boris Epstein
Defending the indefensible, that is. That must be one of the reasons why few people seem to be willing to argue in defense of the official theory of 9/11.
It's not like they don't get an opportunity. The 9/11 skeptics, or 9/11 truthers, or 9/11 conspiracy theorists - pick your term - have challenged them to a debate time, and time, and time again. Here's independent journalist Ed Haas' experience (Change in Venue or Date will not Alter Decision, July 3, 2006):
The fact is that scientists outside the government’s control have been conducting peer evaluation of the NIST scientists and their “pancake theory” for years now, and the government theory has failed to pass the test. Its failure to pass the test means that the government has yet to provide a sustainable explanation of how the twin towers collapsed.
This is not unusual in the scientific community; the process of working hypothesis, research, presenting a theory, subjecting the theory to peer evaluation, and then if failing peer evaluation, returning to the research and even the hypothesis. What is different in this instance though is the stakes; and they couldn’t be higher because so much of what the U.S. government has done since 9/11 is contingent on the majority of the public believing that those twin towers collapsed as the result of the airplane impacts. With an estimated 42% of the American public now skeptical of the 9/11 Commission Report as well as the NIST “pancake theory”; the government knows it is losing the information war on 9/11, and has recently began to mount its predictable counter-offensive.
When faced with the challenge of a National 9/11 Debate, the Muckraker Report turned to the well-respected work of Professor Jones and Professor Fetzer at Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The Muckraker Report contacted Professor Fetzer and asked if he could assemble a highly qualified seven-member civilian debate team that would be willing to debate a seven-member government debate team regarding the government’s account of 9/11 events. Professor Fetzer had a team assembled in two weeks. With the civilian debate team in place, the Muckraker Report identified twenty-nine potential government debate team members to include the ten members of the 9/11 Commission and the thirteen NIST scientists responsible for the government’s “pancake theory” of collapse. Each of these potential government debate team members was mailed numerous invitations. Five of the 9/11 Commissioners had staffers contact the Muckraker Report via telephone to decline invitation due to “prior commitments”. However, the thirteen NIST scientists remained silent.
After three separate mailings of hard copy invitations to the NIST scientists, on June 8, 2006 the Muckraker Report received e-mail from NIST that said, “The project leaders of the NIST World Trade Center investigation team respectfully decline your invitations to participate in the National 9/11 Debate on September 16, 2006.” Not to be deterred, on June 20, 2006 the Muckraker Report e-mailed Michael E. Newman, NIST Director of Media Relations, and asked if there was a better date, time, and location for NIST to participate in the National 9/11 Debate.
On June 25, 2006, NIST Director of Media Relations, Michael E. Newman responded:
The members of the NIST WTC Investigation Team has [sic] respectfully declined your invitation to participate in the National 9/11 Debate. A change in venue or date will not alter that decision.
A change of venue or date will not alter that decision. Fascinating! What Newman is telling the world is that the public servants at NIST, the people paid by the U.S. taxpayers, will never, ever publicly debate their peers regarding the “pancake theory” of collapse of WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7. Taxpayers should be outraged! The public needs to demand accountability. Apparently, the Gang of 13 at NIST does not believe they are accountability to the people. That needs to change, pronto! Newman has repeatedly told the Muckraker Report that NIST “stands solidly behind the collapse mechanisms for each tower and the sequences of events (from aircraft impact to collapse) as described in the report.” The truth is that NIST is hiding behind its unsustainable theory and dares not publicly debate the merits of its report.
Recently, Ann Arbor 911 Truth had a similar experience (9-11 Truth Event in Ann Arbor, April 10, 2007):
On April 7 annarbor911truth.com hosted Kevin Ryan, Kevin Barret and William Rodriguez for an unforgettable afternoon of truth in the League ballroom. We filled over three hundred chairs for this event called "TRUTH STRIKES BACK".
Originally, the group had planned to sponsor a debate. We invited the members of YAF, a popular rightwing organization on campus to to debate us on the following issue: "Have the government and media lied to the public about the events of Sept 11."
Though we issued several polite invitations these were declined.
Next we tried the physics department at the University of Michigan as well as three departments in the school of engineering, Civil, Materials Science and Mechanical. We sent each faculty member a personal invitation as well as a copy of "Improbable Collapse" All of the invitations were declined or not answered; that's over three hundred invitations total for the University faculty. No one would defend the official story as related in the NIST, FEMA and 9-11 Commission Report.
Since we had advertised a "debate", out of desperation Kevin Ryan and Kevin Barret did a mock debate and took turns representing the official story as outlined in NIST and the 9-11 Commission report. Then they took turns showing how these reports failed the public.
Like this author mentioned earlier, "the roar of that silence is deafening." And by all appearances people are slowly waking up to that roar.