Wynn Polnicky argues that a 9/11 Truth display should not be at the public library during the period of heightened awareness on the anniversary of 9/11. Unfortunately, the writer puts himself into a fully contradictory position when he says he is “not writing to argue the merits of any particular conspiracy theory,” which he then proceeds to do by implication if not direct argument.
His first position is that the views expressed by the 9/11 Truth movement are “unconventional and not generally accepted.” Depending on how the question is asked, there is much support globally to the idea that the 9/11 Commission Report is not revealing the real events that occurred before and on that day.
If I were asked the question, “Do you believe the 9/11 Conspiracy theorists?” I would have to say no. If I were asked, “Do you believe the official 9/11 report?” I would also answer no. The first no is because I do not believe in the conspiracy aspect. What I do understand is that there are far too many unanswered questions and details for me to be able to believe the official government version.
First, that does not create a conspiracy, unless it is by the government; and secondly, all governments lie, either directly or by manipulation and concealment to suit their own agenda and purposes.
The 9/11 Truth questions are based on the methodology of scientific inquiry, and not on political ideological acceptance of a pronounced truth. There is ample scientific evidence to support the moon landings, and ample scientific evidence (observable and testable data in the real world) to demonstrate the Holocaust, two spurious arguments thrown out by the writer. That is where the line needs to be drawn, in reference to the writer’s question about, “Where does one draw the line?” The bottom line is drawn under questions posed by evidence and testimony that contradicts the official version of 9/11.
The writer then invokes the principle of Occam’s razor, without defining it or how it can be applied in this case. Occam’s razor, “is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.” These are not competing hypothesis and they are not equal (how can something “be equal“ and have the “fewest assumptions?”).
The government version is a hypothesis of events although proclaimed to be the truth; the questions do not make a hypothesis but remain as unanswered questions to be dealt with.
There is no equality when the government and mainstream media provide the official story and deny evidential basis for raising the questions concerning the events of 9/11.
What is the purpose of a library? First I would offer the dissemination of information, the presentation of information – usually in book form, but more commonly now via the Internet and other media. The official version of the 9/11 events is readily available and supported by many ideological pundits in the U.S. and Canada (much less so in the rest of the world). To have a display with a different option is well within the mandate of a library to be able to provide information services to the broader public.
Jim Miles
Vernon
