Richard Gage and Wellington’s Architecture

So, on November the 21st, Richard Gage will be speaking in Wellington, advocating truth in architecture, which will lead to, apparently, a new official story about 9/11.

The presentation is a free event at Te Papa, the nation’s national museum. Now, it seems anyone can book a room at Te Papa and that someone is the person or persons who run the NZ911Truth website ((The website doesn’t have much in the way of useful or informative content (aside from linkage), although the Says who page has an interesting quote from the leader of the Greens, Jeanette Fitzsimons. I suspect that it might be unfair to make much of it without seeing the actual question she was asked, but still…)).

I’m not sure what to think about the talk; I suspect I’d have less issue with it if it weren’t occurring at the national museum. Museums are meant to be (even though sometimes they are not) repositories of facts ((I’m tempted to put that word in quotes.)) and if they are to play host to talks or presentations challenging the status quo then I’d like that challenge to be something that survives even the most casual scrutiny.

I suspect the problem, for me at least, is that the moral and intellectual responsibility that should be associated with such talks, which are often defended under the rubric of “the freedom of speech,” is in the process of being eroded away. It isn’t enough to say “We have the right to be heard!;” there is an associated duty of dealing with the consequences of what is said.

Now, I realise that a lot of the 9/11 Truthers really do think there are serious issues with the official theory of 9/11 and that they feel the need to air these issues in public; they feel they have a moral responsibility to act ((Although some of those actions, including the hounding of the family members of the victims of 9/11, are clearly immoral.)). However moral imperative isn’t warranted when you consider the epistemic duties holders of alternative theories must shoulder when presenting such hypotheses to the public. These alternative explanations of the events of the 11th of September, 2001, are elaborate houses of cards (I use the plural here because there isn’t a consistent counter-narrative to 9/11), built on the shakiest of foundations. You cannot just assert these theories on the basis of “Well, I think they’re plausible” if they do not survive scrutiny.

So… I’m angling to get some funding to travel down and attend the talk. I’m also curious as to how the interview with Kim Hill has been set up; who set it up, who is advising her, and so forth. I’ll keep my weather eye open on this, although I am somewhat swamped with paper writing duties, which is, curiously enough, all about defending mere politically endorsed theories when they are contrasted with mere Conspiracy Theories.

More news as it comes to hand.


Giovanni says:

Have you thought of contacting Kim Hill’s producer, Mark Cubey, and asking him?