The 9/11 Taboo and its Dimensions Zuberi poses the key question, Is there a Taboo on discussing the facts behind 9/11? and answers it with a resounding yes, not just as a matter of opinion, of course, but with an abundance of evidence. From within hours of the attacks of 9/11, what became the official explanation began to develop in the media, was asserted by the administration and later endorsed by the 9/11 Commission and has since been reinforced by government and media. Yet despite substantial gaps in this highly implausible account of this deep event, significant errors, distortions and omissions in the 9/11 Commission Report, the watershed nature of it as a basis for the Wars of Terror and polls indicating a high degree of public scepticism as to its authenticity and validity, it has been maintained by universities in their curriculum and publications with very little critical examination. Academics interviewed express their concern that in the disciplines of Humanities, Cultural Studies and History, all of which deal with the subject of 9/11 the official account is embraced as an assumed premise with negligible critical assessment while 9/11 scepticism is treated briefly and dismissively. Many aspects of the 9/11 commission itself, including the governments resistance to it and acquiescence under duress, the appointment of Philip Zelakov as Head of the commission with multiple conflicts of interest and a clear breach of the commissions charter, the non-existence of an adversarial analysis in a monologue bereft of advocacy for those accused, the implications of a falsified confession video and the degree to which the evidence was based on testimony extracted by torture obtained without reference to the sources or their interrogators are obvious matters of interest to the Humanities and Social Sciences, which have been studiously and conspicuously ignored by academics. The issue of False Flag attacks including the infamous Northwoods document and the Plan for the New American Century (PNAC) document and the domestic source of the Anthrax attacks that coincided with 9/11 have been largely unexamined by Universities. Given the General Wesley Clarke testimony that Pentagon plans to attack Seven countries in Five years were already in place before 9/11 as early as 1991, this is neglect so startling that it suggests as Graeme McQueen states in one of the interviews that The Universities are sleeping. A single and substantial peer-reviewed article based on privileged access to raw data and published in a respected business journal concluded there was 99% probability that Insider Trading of United and American airlines occurred in the week prior to 9/11 implying fore-knowledge of the impending attacks. Yet this paper, in contrast to other papers of its type, has attracted no discussion or follow-up papers. Again, academics in the disciplines of Social Sciences and Business Studies interviewed by Zuberi deplored the lack of academic attention to these matters. The 30 books written by David Ray Griffin on the subject of 9/11, which have been endorsed by some notable scholars, commended by former CIA officers and are highly regarded for their rigour and scholarly analysis have met with silence from the general academic community. Of particular significance is the absence of rigorous analysis by the disciplines of Civil Engineering and Materials and Physical Sciences where the tools and methods of scientific analysis offer opportunities for much more systematic and conclusive approaches to investigation. A high school physics teacher corrected NIST on the question of free-fall during the collapse of WTC Building Seven in a report delayed more than a year after the 9/11 Commission report, which itself almost entirely ignored the subject; a major event that occurred on 9/11 and yet remained largely absent from public awareness. A minority of researchers are reporting substantial flaws in the theoretical models used to explain the collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 on 9/11, yet there is an apparent broad lack of interest in the subject. Academics interviewed by Zuberi suggest there is a kind of understanding in the field that challenging the official explanation will result in diminished credibility. Exposed in Zuberis Documentary, is the dearth of critical analysis of the official story of 9/11 undertaken by the various, relevant disciplines, which of itself stands as a substantial testimony to the existence of a taboo on academic critical analysis of the official account of 9/11. Its particularly discomfiting when considered in light of the role of universities, again aptly stated by Professor Richard B. Lee The task of Universities and University Professors has to be relentlessly questioning that story and any other story that doesnt stand the smell test.. In every respect the official account of 9/11 fails the smell test. Zuberis appeal to the Academic Community to self-examine in the light of this confronting reality is timely and compelling. - See more at: mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/33242-9-11-truth.html#sthash.bTeY9VqK.dpuf
Posted on: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:17:19 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015