To Patrick S. McNally: What is your overall view regarding 9/11 (and the 9/11 Truth movement) these days?
Whatever your current stance, you are still welcome to post comments here on my blog. Many of your comments here have been very informative and all-around very helpful.
I ask because of the discussion that ensued in the Truth Action forum after it was brought to my attention, by “siddhartha,” that you had been banned from the Truth Action forum, for an alleged “antisemitic” posting. I was shocked because it seemed to me, on the contrary, that you had been doing an excellent job of debunking various classic Jew-hating myths.
I’m aware that you’re a Holocaust Revisionist, which is not necessarily the same thing as being a Jew-hater. (If anything, you are a clear example proving that not all Holocaust Revisionists are Jew-haters, although many Holocaust Revisionists are indeed Jew-haters, of course.) When you once posted an HR comment here on this blog, you respected my decision not to discuss the topic of HR any further here, and you didn’t seem to hold it against me. So, I saw no reason to hold your HR against you either. Your comments on other topics, especially about the banking system, both here and in the Truth Action forum, have been very valuable to me.
It turned out that you were banned because of a link to a hate site, plus what looked to me like a subsequent misunderstanding. Apparently you had linked to a neo-Nazi site for the purpose of sourcing and refuting a common claim by Jew-haters. I should perhaps clarify my own comment policy here on this blog. I too prohibit links to hate sites. Should you ever have occasion, here, to refer to something like the Freedman speech, the way I would prefer that you do so is to give the name of the website (without a link) and describe the specific page, including enough relevant keywords in your description of the specific page so that someone could very easily find it via a search engine.
Anyhow, are you the same Patrick S. McNally who posted, on 911blogger back in 2006, the comment quoted here? Also, are you the same Patrick S. McNally that appears in the pages linked in this post by Col. Jenny Sparks? I’m just asking for my own information, and so that I can respond intelligently in the Truth Action forum. (I certainly don’t intend to ban you from this blog, as long as you follow my stated comment policy and also follow my request not to get into HR discussions here.)
I’ve sent you an email message at the address you used when registering on WordPress. Thus, you now have my email address and can email me privately about anything you wish to tell me that’s not appropriate to discuss here on this blog.
Be that as it may, another issue that has come up is comment of yours on the WTCD site, as quoted here by Col. Jenny Sparks. That comment can be interpreted a few different ways. Do you now reject the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole, or just the demolition dogmatists? The way you refer to “the troothers,” you do come across as someone who has rejected the movement as a whole.
But the people on the WTCD site are a particularly repulsively dogmatic bunch. They do not represent the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole. They too have been banned from the Truth Action forum, as you may or may not have noticed. (If I recall correctly, they were banned for calling just about everyone who disagreed with them “shills.”) And not everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement believes in the WTC demolition hypothesis. Some well-known leading figures, such as Jon Gold, don’t advocate the WTC demolition hypothesis at all.
Anyhow, I agree with the careful, scholarly approach that you urged in that comment of yours on the WTCD site. I just don’t like the name-calling (“troothers”) and the impression that you’ve thrown out the baby with the bathwater as far as the 9/11 Truth movement is concerned.
So I would appreciate a clarification as to your overall views now.
I’ll now summarize my own views at the present time.
First, I would say we can be sure that both George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are, at the very least, guilty of criminal negligence. (See my posts Bush at Booker School on the morning of 9/11 and George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers: Their whereabouts on 9/11.) There are reasons to suspect they may be guilty of far worse than criminal negligence, but that is much less certain.
Another thing we can be sure of is that the 9/11 Commission was compromised by conflicts of interest. Related to that, there were whistleblowers who were not heard, who claim there was a lot more foreknowledge than has been admitted in any variant of the official story. It is clear that there was a coverup of some kind, although we don’t know what was covered up.
It is clear, too, that we’ve been lied to about air defense. However, as far as I am aware, no one has yet done the detailed research necessary to establish a baseline for expected performance of the air defense system. So, it has not yet been definitively proven that the system performed below par, although there are strong reasons to suspect that it did perform below par. (See The lack of air defense in my post My main reasons for being suspicious about 9/11.)
As far as the WTC buildings are concerned, I would now classify myself as a “demolition agnostic.” It seems unlikely to me that WTC 7, in particular, collapsed due just to fire and structural damage. However, what I previously thought of as the strongest evidence for the demolition hypothesis has recently been called into question. (See various recent posts.)
In any case, a new and truly independent investigation is clearly called for.
What do you think?