'The Forward' Covers Rabbi Michael Lerner's 9/11 Skepticism

[reprehensor]

A 9/11 Gov’t Conspiracy? ‘I Wouldn’t Be Surprised,’ Says Tikkun Editor

Daniel Treiman | Tue. Feb 06, 2007

Rabbi Michael Lerner, the longtime activist and editor of Tikkun magazine, has published an essay saying he is open to the possibility that the American government may have been behind the September 11 terrorist attacks.

“I would not be surprised to learn that some branch of our government conspired either actively to promote or passively to allow the attack on 9/11,” Lerner wrote in an essay published in the new book, “9/11 and American Empire: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out.” Lerner added that he would also not be surprised if it turned out that the attacks were not the result of a government conspiracy.

“I am agnostic on the question of what happened on 9/11,” he wrote in his essay for the book, which includes articles by other contributors arguing that a government conspiracy was behind the September 11 attacks. “As other authors in this collection have shown, there are huge holes in the official story and contradictions that suggest that we do not know the whole story.” ...

... While Lerner is willing — if only skeptically — to entertain those who posit a plot by the American government, he has no such indulgence for another popular conspiracy theory, namely that Israel was behind the September 11 attacks. He said that whereas the Bush administration benefited politically from the attacks, and thus had a “plausible motivation,” Israel had no such interest in seeing the attacks occur.

“Anything about Israel and the relationship to 9/11,” Lerner said, “I think is total baloney.”

Continued...
http://www.forward.com/articles/a-9-11-govt-conspiracy-i-wouldnt-be-surprised-sa/#

[jschurchin]

1. “Anything about Israel and the relationship to 9/11,” Lerner said, “I think is total baloney.”

I couldn't agree more.

[rman]

3. Yeah, just about every other country is connected to 9/11

one way or another - except Israel.

[greyl]

5. Can you define what you mean by "just about every other country" please?

I don't think you honestly mean "most". Do you?

[HamdenRice]

7. Here's one way "many" governments are involved ...

There are various press reports that the intelligence agencies of Russia, Jordan, Egypt, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries warned the US of the impending attacks, including probably in the summer 2001 PDB.

Knowing that they gave explicit warnings and that Bush mysteriously did nothing, these governments have sat on that information -- ie the degree of specificity of the warnings. They also know how 9/11 has been used. I suspect that these governments are holding back for strategic reasons, although it seems like the Russians are getting pissed off and are beginning to blab, as is Pakistan's Musharraf.

[JackRiddler]

16. Consider too that

Three of the most specific warnings reported after the fact: Jordan called the operation by the name the OCT would indeed later assign to it ("Big Wedding" according to John Cooley in the IHT). The Russians said 25 pilots trained in Uzbekistan had been dispatched to carry out an attack (Janes Defense). Putin later said he personally made one of the calls (MS-NBC). Israel provided a list of 19 names, four of which were the alleged ringleaders (Die Zeit) - same four identified by Able Danger according to its 5 whistleblowers.

Now come all ye debunkers and say the above consists of mistakes by those sources - how do you know? Did the Graham/Goss committee or the Kean Commission cover of any of these? And of course we're talking only about three of the warning reports. If anything was reported from abroad, apparently it didn't have to be addressed.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. I agree with Lerner. Who had the access? US Intel, Bin Laden, or the Mossad?

US intel clearly had the access and also the ability to detect either Bin laden or the Mossad.

Who could cover it up? That's a no brainer.

So yeah, what Lerner says makes sense.

[greyl]

4. "not be surprised if ... the attacks were not the result of a government conspiracy." ?

You agree with that?
Do you know what agnostic means?
Just wanting clarification.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Way to cherry pick .

“I would not be surprised to learn that some branch of our government conspired either actively to promote or passively to allow the attack on 9/11,” Lerner wrote in an essay published in the new book, “9/11 and American Empire: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out.” Lerner added that he would also not be surprised if it turned out that the attacks were not the result of a government conspiracy.

Yes. agnostic means mean that Lerner, like the rest of us, (with the exception of the JREFers among us) hasn't enough information to rationally come to a decision on what happened.

I also agree with him that it is unlikely the attacks were masterminded by a foriengn governmet, such as Israel.

I don't agree with you that the NIST has settled the question of what caused the the 3 collapses.
I don't agree with you that the 9/11 Commission wasn't compromised. I don't agree with you that a critical thinker would reject out of hand the very real possibility that people within our government conspired to bring about the attacks.

Perhaps one day there will be an investigation that collects and publishes enough information so that people can make a determination as to what really happened.

Until then, a critical thinker would certainly not jump to a conclusion as to who all were involved with the attacks.

[greyl]

9. Cherry picking implies altering the intended meaning of someones general pov.

That didn't happen.

Clarify: Do you agree with this statement?: "Lerner added that he would also not be surprised if it turned out that the attacks were not the result of a government conspiracy."

[John Q. Citizen]

10. I agree that Lerner would not be surprised, in either case.

He said it and I take that at face value.

He obviously doesn't have enough information to make a decision, just like most of us, with the exception of the JREF brigade. That is the main reason most of us would like a real investigation into all facets of 9/11. We would like enough information to make a decision.

The JREF brigade apparently feel they already have enough information to make a decision. I don't care. You have a right to your opinion, certainly.

Would you describe Lerner's full statement as reflecting your opinion?

“I would not be surprised to learn that some branch of our government conspired either actively to promote or passively to allow the attack on 9/11,” Lerner wrote in an essay published in the new book, “9/11 and American Empire: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out.” Lerner added that he would also not be surprised if it turned out that the attacks were not the result of a government conspiracy.

[greyl]

11. I agree with that paragraph, yes.

However, I must point out that I'm a "strong atheist" regarding every CT I've seen so far.
If there was a conspiracy, it wasn't that one, iow.

[HamdenRice]

12. JCQ, I didn't get the memo ...

What's a JREFer? Is it like an OCTer?

[greyl]

13. His use is an erroneous caricature.

www.randi.org

If your definition of OCTer still means "Bush Lover", then the real answer is "no".

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Oh, I'm sure there are some bush voting JREFers. But most probably aren't.

at least not anymore.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. "The James Randi Educational Foundation is a non-profit learning resource aimed at promoting

critical thinking everywhere," according to there mission statement.

James Randi was a self promoted debunker of para-normal claims and a stage magician.

My impression of the posters there is that most fancy themselves as more critically thinking than anybody else.

It usually translates out as a lot defense of the status quo and a lot of ridicule for anyone who questions the status quo.

Many of our so-called OCTers are frequent flyers from over there.


Here's an example of one critical thinker from today..

Donal "I simply can't vote a vegan into the White house. I'm sorry, I just can't."
Thinker


Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 188
My Profile

So, here's a JFER who bases his political choice on the diet of the candidate. Critical thinker or protector of the status-quo? You be the judge. Notice he calls him or her self a "thinker." This is pretty typical but not nessesarily totally representational. Everyone there, certainly, isn't a complete moran.

[JackRiddler]

17. "Skepticism" as status quo religion *rant*

Withering analysis... when applied to bigfoot, Nessie, vitamin supplements and crop circles. Courageous. Long as the target is socially weak.

Not bad on dismantling the standard-god religions, but this is also shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?

One thing that bothers me is the way they constantly devalue a solid scientific paradigm based on ample physical evidence (evolution) by invoking it in association with obviously religious speculation in the guise of science (big bang theory). Schermer did that in his standard-moo "skeptical" article on 9/11, he said the official story of 9/11 (no documentation except what the USG provides) as having the same truth-value scientifically as

- the history of the Holocaust (where we actually have the government documents showing what happened)
- the Big Bang (an idle iteration of Genesis myth that will be overturned as surely as every other cosmological theory was, given that we haven't actually seen even a fraction of the universe) and
- evolution (plainly obvious from the fossil record).

Science, history, current events, biology, cosmology, what's the diff? This is methodological salad-tossing!

Long as it's the currently dominant paradigm, it's good.

Another one I like is Occam's razor. Never has a useful heuristic (that's a rule of thumb, not a law!) for evaluating hypotheses in the natural sciences been so uselessly transposed to the political realm. As though humans can't deceive and outthink and out-doublethink each other? Or is it that rocks can issue lying press releases about the acceleration of gravity?

Later.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Good rant. n/t

[greyl]

19. Pedantic, meandering, and ignorant baloney.

JackRiddler: "Long as it's the currently dominant paradigm, it's good."

The current paradigm in the general US populace is one fashioned of credulity, lazy thinking, and adherence to tradition. For you to attack skepticism in general, equates to an attack on critical thinking in general.
It's no secret that those swayed by commercials for fraudulent products eg psychic hotlines, homeopathy, astrology, spiritual salvation through cellphones, automobiles & brand name fashion, televangelists, get rich quick schemes, etc also tend to have a very weak command of critical thinking and cast skeptics as an enemy. Those people have little or no evidence to support their wishful thoughts, so their last resort is to attack those who convincingly kick through the veils of myth.
It's also no secret that the topic of critical thinking and skepticism is like kryptonite to Inside Job Cultists here, as it should be.
Because of the "shooting fish in a barrel" examples you chose, I'm convinced that you don't have a working familiarity with the broad topics covered at JREF or an appreciation for the damage done to society by irrational beliefs. Your attempt to discredit skepticism (JREF specifically) by classifying the targets they go after as easy is ignorant of the fact that entities like Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Allison DuBois, Chris Bollyn, Webster Tarpley, Katherine Harris, George Bush, ABC, CNN et al, the Vatican, Avery, Bermas, and Rowe, have a huge fucking credulous following. Do you suppose most of the followers know the first 2 things about logic, critical analysis, and the fallibility of the human mind?

The victims of most skepticism at JREF naturally tend to be the most popular frauds - those who've already amassed a gullible audience. The quantity of need for healthy skepticism of those entities therefore corresponds to their popularity, no matter how obviously baseless the claims are to some.

I know you're no fan of Loose Change. Good luck competing with its non-skeptical fans for top spot in the 9/11 Truth Movement. If critical thinking held a proper status in our education system, the truth could take care of itself.

SPECIAL RULES FOR PSEUDOSCIENCE

Reader Doug Fraser, a science teacher in Ontario, Canada, reminds us that the British Medical Association journal, the Lancet, published a crushing rebuke of homeopathy last August. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm. But, says Doug, the very best part of that report – which many missed – was the response from an un-named spokesperson for the Society of Homeopaths. In a statement that could not possibly better reflect the misguided nature of pseudoscience, it read:

It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy.

This is ridiculous. It says that the very basis of proper, established, proven, scientific evaluation of data is wrong. This comes as a huge surprise to every other scientist on Earth. Comments Mr. Fraser:

So now we get the straight goods from the homeopaths – the mathematics of random numbers doesn't work for them, researcher and patient bias must be maintained, and when someone is given a homeopathic remedy it won't work if someone "down the street" ingests a fake pill. To be living in a Shirley MacLaine universe must be horribly dim.

Agreed. But homeopathy has always demanded special rules by which it wants to be evaluated. I think that a better phrasing of the Society of Homeopaths’ statement would be:

It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that when proper placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials of homeopathy are carried out, the results indicate that homeopathy is useless. Thus, we conclude that proper scientific standards are not fitting research tools with which to test homeopathy.

Okay?
Link

[greyl]

24. kick nt

[HamdenRice]

20. great rant -- best paragraph:

<<Another one I like is Occam's razor. Never has a useful heuristic (that's a rule of thumb, not a law!) for evaluating hypotheses in the natural sciences been so uselessly transposed to the political realm. As though humans can't deceive and outthink and out-doublethink each other? Or is it that rocks can issue lying press releases about the acceleration of gravity?>>

Applying Occam's razor to the initial evidence that leaked out about Iran contra would certainly not have led to the conclusion that the US was arming Iran just months after the resolution of the Iran hostage crisis!

[HamdenRice]

21. You're shitting me!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
So all this bile and invective and hijacking comes from a bunch of fans of "The Amazing Randi"! I remember him from TV in the 60s and 70s. They guy who made his name proving that Uri Geller really did not bend spoons with his mind? The guy who was a magician himself and then decided to show the public how magic tricks are done?

That's their intellectual inspiration?!?!?
:rofl:

Can never vote for a vegan!?!?!?!?

Priceless!!

HAHAHAHAHHAH!!!!

[John Q. Citizen]

22. Yes, you should visit the site for a laugh. I saw another poster who referred to

himself as "Critical Thinker" under his handle who, using "critical thinking" purported to prove that the US corporate media is "liberal."

At the time I saw it, (yesterday) there weren't any challenging replies. So much for critical thinking.....

[greyl]

23. If someone judged all of DU based on posts by those who don't believe

men have walked on the moon, they'd be an idiot.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. I don't think any government is directly responsible

Although US foreign policy of the last forty years has set up this situation. Non-governmental groups with access to funds, money and people can challenge the power of any nation state. Many insurgent groups in Iraq have rendered the "US-led Coalition" irrelevant in Iraq without backing from other nation states.