Is This True?

[angrysoba]

I noticed the "manifests" page on 911myths was getting lots of hits from a French page, took a look & noticed this issue had come back to life again.

Essentially some French figure had dismissed a truther, pointing to my page and saying it explained everything, so this truther site figured it was time to try a debunking.

From what I could make out (there was no English version), they were defending Griffin's use of the CNN lists, while attempting to dismiss everything else - McDermott's lists, the Boston Globe manifest and Moussaoui trial exhibits - on the grounds that they hadn't been authenticated to their exacting standards.

And so this issue is becoming a perfect illustration of the lop-sided standards of proof required by truthers. It's apparently perfectly okay for Griffin to pretend the CNN lists are complete official manifests, even though the site unambiguously tells us they are not; however if anyone else presents something that is described as a manifest, it's simply hand waved away.

And to think some truthers wonder why we question their honesty and integrity. Too funny, indeed.

I know exactly what you mean. Frequently someone will say, "There were no Arab names on the manifest." I've asked people who do this to substantiate their claim and all they ever do is point to DRG's citing of the "victims" list.

I point out that it would be a sick joke indeed to classify the hijackers as victims and often point to the 9/11 Myths page (is it your site, Mike W?) or the actual manifests assuming that that would be the end of it. Of course, while it should be the end of it for any right-minded person, Truthers are not right-minded people and then they go on to ask how these "manifests" can be considered authentic.

I did actually email Terry McDermott to ask him how he got hold of the manifests and he replied that he applied to the FBI under the FOIA. In the meantime he tracked them down independently, finished up the book and had it published. After the publication, the FBI came through with the request and gave him copies of exactly the same manifests.

Some Truthers have argued that these manifests never appeared until the Mousaoui trial in 2006 but McDermott's book came out in 2005.

As you say, it is so easy to make such a simple false claim such as that and yet so time-consuming to debunk. Even when it is, then all the Truther needs to do is question the authenticity and provenance of the evidence. Effectively they can do this infinitely because their skepticism is completely one-sided and all evidence against their position is worth nought.

 

[MikeW]

...often point to the 9/11 Myths page (is it your site, Mike W?) or the actual manifests assuming that that would be the end of it. Of course, while it should be the end of it for any right-minded person, Truthers are not right-minded people and then they go on to ask how these "manifests" can be considered authentic.

It's my site, yes.

It's okay to question whether the manifests are authentic. What it's not okay to do is dismiss them while clinging to the CNN lists as though they meant anything. The honest position would be to forget the "no Arab names on the manifests" claim because it's obviously untrue, and instead switch to some demand for more clarification on the published manifests.

Of course that would lead to other problems. The fact is there's already evidence from the airlines that they believed the hijackers were on the planes, so truthers would have to find a way to dismiss that. And then it would begin to become very obvious what they're doing, what in fact being a 9/11 truther is all about any every area: finding ever more new and inventive ways to ignore reality.

Plus, of course, you don't sell many books with statements like "the presence of the hijackers on the planes hasn't been established to my exacting standards". Much better to say "there's no evidence the hijackers were never on the planes", that sounds good: and **** the truth.

 

[angrysoba]

It's my site, yes.

Then I want to thank you for creating it as it has been an invaluable resource.

It's okay to question whether the manifests are authentic. What it's not okay to do is dismiss them while clinging to the CNN lists as though they meant anything. The honest position would be to forget the "no Arab names on the manifests" claim because it's obviously untrue, and instead switch to some demand for more clarification on the published manifests.

Yes, I certainly meant that the CNN lists shouldn't be seen as a superior piece of evidence.

It's quite acceptable, I suppose, to question where the flight manifests came from but really it is only being questioned because David Ray Griffin set that red herring loose in the first place.

 

[INRM]

Sam I Am,

Crews, passengers and hijackers. Only the crews and passengers were victims and were listed as such. Nobody was going to mourn the loss of the murderers who killed themselves in the furtherance of their crimes. The closest you'll get are the people who wished that the hijackers could be resurrected and killed again.

Thank you for clarifying this.

 

[carlitos]

It's my site, yes.

Sorry, off-topic, but...

I love the site, but can never find the images for flight 175 when I look. Is there a site map, or suggested navigation?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Sam I Am,



Thank you for clarifying this.

You're welcome, but I thought it was pretty obvious. I'm also willing to bet that the memorials don't have the names of the hijackers on them either. That doesn't mean that they weren't there, just that they don't deserve to be lumped in with everyone else.