Has Tatchell lost the plot?

by Scoop Shachtman, 12 September 2007

Evidence for the prosecution.

Hat tip Will

Comments

Gadgie
Wednesday 12 September 2007 at 17:43

Yes
Gadgie
Wednesday 12 September 2007 at 17:55

OK more serious this time about another ‘I am not a conspiracy theorist but’ piece. Peter, Peter, how could you?

His main evidence is that

1. nutty web sites exist
2. people believe them

Then he throws in the bizarre, unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7 (WTC7), which is neither bizarre nor unexplained.

But then there are many more strange unexplained facts. What are they please because I know of none that haven’t been explained perfectly well.

Try this site
Jura Watchmaker
Wednesday 12 September 2007 at 18:44

Perhaps he’s simply trying to raise his CiF profile following a bit of a lean period.
TGlavin
Wednesday 12 September 2007 at 18:57

He hasn’t lost it. Not completely, anyway. What he’s done is he’s committed a shoddy piece of almost-journalism that he will probably regret for a long, long time.

What’s happening here, it would seem, is that the chair and vice-chair of a widely-panned commission have co-authored an apology for themselves that lashes out and blames everyone for their commission’s shortcomings. No doubt there’s a lot of blame to go around - but just how necessary it was to examine in exacting detail every single nut and bolt of that event in the first place is very much an open question. I can easily imagine hard-working seniro civil servants giving the commission the brush-off simply because it was an inordinately expensive and time-wasting nuisance. Dark motives and sinister evasions aren’t the only explanations available.

That Tatchell got the WTC 7 collapse wrong is evidence of laziness, and he should be embarassed. But when he describes Scholars for 911 Truth as “academics and intellectuals from many disciplines,” his laziness becomes gross irresponsibility.

I had the pleasure of inquring into these respected “scholars” not long ago. This is what I found:

1. Morgan Reynolds, Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Sounds impressive yes?

In fact, Reynolds is a nutcase, much beloved of the nutcases at LewRockwell.com, and Reynolds has committed himself to the loony assertion that it wasn’t a jetliner that was crashed into the Pentagon. Nevermind the dozens of eyewitnesses. The hole was just “too small.”

2. Robert M. Bowman, former Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, a former senior Air Force Colonel with 101 combat missions, who is also a Catholic Archbishop.

Also sounds impressive. But wait. Bowman appears to have had something to do with some government office, back in the days of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, which may well have mutated into the “Star Wars” office Ronald Reagan set up years later. Bowman’s clerical credentials turn out to be his title of “bishop” with something called the United Catholic Church of Melbourne, Florida. He’s their pope, like.

3. Lloyd DeMause, Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory.

Ah yes. Lloyd DeMause, who says incest is perfectly normal and the Holocaust was the result of German parents being mean to their kids.

4. James H. Fetzer, Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than 20 books and co-chair of Scholars for 911 Truth.

One of Professor Fetzer’s books asserts that JFK’s assassination was also followed by a massive conspiracy coverup.

I could go on.

And on.
Matt
Wednesday 12 September 2007 at 19:15

Yes, Tatchell has lost the plot.
Will
Wednesday 12 September 2007 at 20:13

If anyone is interested…Tatchell makes a further comment here:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_coverup.html#comment-809735
TGlavin
Wednesday 12 September 2007 at 20:29

“I am very surprised that some people still reject point blank any need for a further inquiry, which would (hopefully) clear up these issues for once and for all.”

No Pete, it wouldn’t clear up anything once and for all. It would just mean more talk about holograms and black helicopters.
Will
Wednesday 12 September 2007 at 20:53

A correct approach and application of knowledge to a search for ‘truth which has material benefits’ — not some pseudo rationalisations or conspiracy crap, or a need to fulfill some abstract ideological yearning — here’s a state-of-the-art animated visualization/ simulation, created by researchers at Purdue University of the Twin Towers collapse. NB: this clip is not exploititive or sensationalist of the horrific attack.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3UvPWny_PBc
hakmao
Wednesday 12 September 2007 at 22:48

Peter’s having a senior moment — nothing much to see. No pointing or laughing, just move along quietly thanks.

The ‘jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to *melt* steel’ mob should try learning some 6th form structural mechanics.
Will
Thursday 13 September 2007 at 11:15

That thread at CIF has now descended into meltdown itself.