Last night I got down to the Lower East Side for one of Todd
Seavy's monthly debates, this time centered on the question,
"Did
the Government Know in Advance About 9/11?" Karol Sheinin of
Alarming News argued the "No" position. I was actually going to
email her to see if I could get a copy of her opening statement,
but she save me the trouble by posting it here.
Suffice to say, Karol speaks for herself better than I could
summarize her, but I will confirm she is a smart, well-spoken young
woman whose best attributes were definitely on display during the
debate.
Sander Hicks
presented the "Yes" position, which wasn't based on any theories
I'd heard previously from 9/11 Truthers. Hicks pegs Pakistani
intelligence as a major participant, and said his lack of adherence
to some 9/11 Truth dogma has led many in that movement to label
him, despite his belief that the government let the attacks happen,
as an agent. (Sheinin parodied this as a kind of
conspiracy-theories-are-all-crazy-except-for-mine attitude.)Anyway,
honestly, having not read Hicks' book--you buy it by the case, I guess--and
being wholly, strangely unfamiliar with the people he name-checked
as sources, it is difficult to give a "grade" on content, but I
will say I was touched by his passion, his obvious heartfelt belief
in his theory, whatever its ultimate merits, and his general
command of the details of that theory. Hicks also founded Soft
Skull Press, an interesting idiosyncratic left publishing house
that put out Paul Berman's Power
and the Idealists, which I reviewed favorably in
AmSpec last year.
Both Hicks and Sheinin knew they were walking into an
environment in which half the people in the room would think they
were obstinate, crazy and uninterested in the truth. They should be
commended for the bravery to do so. (The audience didn't always
carry itself with equal grace, but that's another story, I
suppose.) Karol's "No" position narrowly won the vote. I don't
know: You could say the two sides were talking past one another
last night, but, really, considering the gulf between the two
positions and the implications of accepting one or the other, what
else could we reasonably expect?
topics:
Environment, Pakistan
