By Frank Moher
While researching my next-to-last post (and did you realize that “blogging” and “research” are not necessarily mutually exclusive?), I came across the following video:
In it, a very earnest and nervous woman confronts Alan Gregg, Chantal Hébert, and Andrew Coyne after a taping of the CBC political panel “At Issue,” with a question about the media’s handling of the events of 9/11:
“Why has the media failed to investigate the most glaring anomalies of 9/11, like the freefall collapse of the third tower, Building 7, or interview any of the high-ranking dissenters of the official 9/11 conspiracy theories –”
The Truther doesn’t get to finish her question. Before she can, her companion notes that the events have affected Canadian policy, and Hébert humbly interjects that “It’s the strength of our panel that we do not talk about things that we do not have enough experts to tell us about” (at least that’s what I hear; judge for yourself).
Some screenshots from along the route of the questioning may be instructive:
Also before our Truther finishes, Gregg insists “I’m completely unqualified to answer this question.” This, mind, before the question has actually been posed. Granted, the preamble is a bit long-winded, but that’s entirely because most mainstream pundits need to be informed of basic facts surrounding 9/11 before they can be asked about them.
After expressing their regret at being uninformed, Gregg and Hébert make for the exits. Coyne, to his credit, remains to engage the woman. What follows is less admirable.
Now, I was going to take off after Coyne for his responses: that you couldn’t keep quiet “all the people who’d have to be involved” in the demolition of the towers, or that “people have actually looked at this in some detail, and the people whose judgment I trust have looked at this in some detail and don’t find it credible.” But I think, first, I’ll ask some questions. After all, maybe Mr. Coyne will have some better responses this time around.
So, Andrew. (May I call you Andrew? You may remember that we worked across the hall from each other for a few months. Or maybe not.) Here are my two, simple questions:
– Who do you mean when you talk about the people who have looked at this in some detail?
– And, who are the people “whose judgment [you] trust who have looked at this in some detail and don’t find it credible”?
Maybe they’re the same people in both instances, in which case that’s a single question. Even simpler.
Now, you may suppose that Andrew Coyne doesn’t check into backofthebook.ca on a regular basis, and you’d probably be right. So, in addition to e-mailing him a link to this article, I’m going to advertise it on a few sites — including andrewcoyne.com. One way or another, hopefully he’ll see it. I’ll let you know if he replies (or he can simply click on that Comment link down there).
Mr. Gregg and Mme. Hébert are also welcome to respond, but I wouldn’t count on it. After all, we already know they’re too busy to answer questions after the cameras are turned off.
I think Chantal Hébert handled that fairly well, but then I have a bit of a crush on her, so perhaps I’m biased.
I haven’t heard any credible analysis of the collapse of building three either, though just as interesting for me would be the question that given the seismic force involved in the sudden collapse of first one massive tower, and then another, why didn’t more buildings in the immediate vicinity of the towers collapse?
Likewise I’ll reserve judgment on the claim that a passenger jet crashed into the pentagon until I see credible evidence to support that claim. But absence of evidence doesn’t mean that the claim is false. And if you’re a commentator dependent on secondary sources and those sources don’t allow you in good conscience to make any sort of statement, how about doing exactly as Hébert did and not waste everyone’s time?