See other Resistance Articles
Title: A Conspiracy Against Us All
Source:
NRO
URL Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/? ... M0M2ZjOTUwZWU4YWRiMjRlOTVjZGM=
Published: Sep 11, 2006
Author: Andrew Cline
Post Date: 2006-09-16 13:16:49 by It Is A Republic
Keywords: None
Views: 34319
Comments: 428
Five years after 9/11, the truth about what happened that day is more thoroughly documented and widely available than ever. And yet the crackpot conspiracy theories alleging that the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks or allowed them to happen have become more deeply entrenched and broadly accepted than at any time since that terrible day. More than a third (36 percent) of the American public believes it is likely that the Bush administration either perpetrated the 9/11 attacks or deliberately failed to stop them “because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East,” according to a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll released last month. A Zogby poll in August 2004 found that half of New York City residents believed the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming and “consciously failed to act.” The true believers might be a tiny fringe element, but thanks to the Internet, hack academics, and a passive media, they have succeeded in planting a grain of doubt in the minds of a substantial number of Americans. The Internet is a brilliant vehicle for the dissemination of half-truths — or what only have the appearance of half-truths. Presenting one-sided versions of the story, which usually leave out mountains of available data, and armed with a few snapshots or video clips, conspiracy theorists have crafted page after page of “proof” of their theories. For example, photographs showing dust and smoke shooting out of the towers as they collapse are cited on website after website as proof that the towers were brought down by explosions. The theory is reasonable enough, so long as you ignore all the available evidence — which is exactly what the theorists do. Numerous engineers who’ve studied the towers, and even ones who haven’t, have concluded that the puffs of smoke and debris are the result of air being pressed outward by the force of the top floors falling. It is really rather elementary: The physical space occupied by any office building consists mostly of air; if the top floors fall, where does the air in the floors below go? Out. There is no other option. Yet the theorists claim that this perfectly expected expulsion of air is proof that bombs were used. The most prevalent theory is that the government brought the towers down by controlled demolition. This is what Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, put on leave by BYU last week, believes — once again, despite the preponderance of facts showing otherwise. Jones and his followers believe that the government placed thermite explosives in the buildings and brought them down by detonation. Never mind that thousands of pounds of explosives would somehow have to have been planted throughout the towers — in office space, behind walls, etc. — without anyone noticing. The “proof” of this theory is that the towers came down so quickly: The resistance of the lower floors would have slowed the collapse — unless, that is, the lower floors were exploded. The video evidence clearly refutes this claim. The towers unquestionably collapsed from the top down, not bottom up. The force of the collapsing top floors, combined with the weakened steel below, were enough to bring the towers down remarkably quickly — almost in free fall, in fact. A good example of the flimsiness of the conspiracy theories is the claim that a video shows “molten steel” falling from one of the towers. A jet-fuel fire is not strong enough to melt steel, so the picture “proves” that thermite explosives were used. The National Institutes for Standards and Training found was that the photo really shows melted aluminum from one of the aircraft. The theorists scream that melted aluminum is white, and the metal in question is clearly yellow, case closed. In its pure state, melted aluminum is white, but of course, it wasn’t pure when coming out of the towers. It was mixed with all the other burned debris, which changed its color. The conspiracy theories rely on just that sort of thinking. They approach 9/11 as if it were a controlled scientific experiment: In theory, things are supposed to work in a certain way; because they did not, the official story cannot be true. Conspiracy theorists have little patience for facts of life, such as bureaucratic incompetence, human error, and extreme conditions. They tend to believe that the government functions at peak, even superhuman, levels. Their regard for the government — or at least, for the competence of the government — is particularly strange. The top conspiracy theorist, David Ray Griffin, claims the official story cannot possibly be true is because “such incompetence by FAA officials is not believable.” The support of “academics” such as Griffin has lent much credence to the conspiracy mongers, but how credible are these academics? Last Wednesday Britain’s Daily Mail published a story claiming: “The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an ‘inside job,’ according to a group of leading academics.” But the group in question, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, of which Griffin is the most prominent member, is in no sense a “group of leading academics.” It is a collection of like-minded crackpot theorists who happen to have some connection to academia. Scholars for 9/11 Truth claims about 300 total members, 76 of whom have “academic affiliations,” according to its founder, retired University of Minnesota-Duluth philosophy professor James H. Fetzer. He told this to my newspaper, the New Hampshire Union Leader, last month when one of our reporters discovered that a University of New Hampshire professor was a member and wanted to teach a class on 9/11. The UNH professor, William Woodward, teaches psychology — not engineering or physics — is a Quaker pacifist previously arrested for demonstrating at the office of U.S. Senator Judd Gregg, and has a long history of left-wing activism. When asked by a reporter to explain his theory that the planes were not hijacked airliners, Woodward admitted that he could not account for the missing passengers who boarded their flights and never returned. Nonetheless, he was convinced that he was right — because the official 9/11 report left too much unexplained, he said. That is how it usually is in the world of conspiracy theorists. It seems that they all claim the official story cannot be true because it has too many holes, yet goes on to posit a theory with holes large enough to, well, fly a jumbo jet through. Some members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth are or were legitimate academics of good standing at reputable institutions. Yet, of the 76 Fetzer identifies as having “academic affiliations,” there are many with questionable credentials. A partial list includes a “visiting professor of English” at Kyungpook National University in Daegu, South Korea; an assistant professor of English literature at Dogus University in Istanbul; someone whose qualifications are listed only as “Radiology, Medical hypnosis”; another whose qualifications are “French language and culture”; someone who teaches at Tunxis Community College in Farmington, Conn.; another listed as “architect, communicator”; one professor of “English and theater” at the University of Guelph (that’s in Ontario); and one listed as “author, researcher 9/11, JFK, more.” These are some of the “leading academics” promoting the view that the government did 9/11. One author with an article posted on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website goes by the name “Scooby Doo.” Of the 76 full members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, only four are listed as having backgrounds in physics, three in engineering; the other 69 “scholars” are mostly in the humanities and social sciences. Not quite what you’d expect when you hear that a group of “leading academics” supports the theory that the government was behind the attack. What do the vast majority of actual engineers and investigators who’ve studied the attacks conclude? Not unexpectedly, that the towers and the Pentagon were attacked by airliners hijacked by radical Islamic extremists, and the towers collapsed as a result of the aircraft collisions and fires. Every major investigation, from the 9/11 Commission to a panel of experts assembled by Popular Mechanics magazine to the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), has come to the same conclusion. And yet more and more people continue to believe the handful of conspiracy nuts. Why? The Internet bears some responsibility, of course. But the amateur speculation so prevalent there can be cancelled out to a large degree by top-notch investigative reporting, which is what the big media are supposed to do. In this, however, the media have been less than thorough, and, to a large extent, the 9/11 conspiracy theories have spread because the mainstream media have failed in their duty to get to the truth of the matter. Popular Mechanics did an excellent job refuting the conspiracy theorists, as has the NIST. But their work has been little explored by the mainstream press. On top of that, media outlets have tended to do puff pieces on the conspiracy theorists rather than expose their shoddy research. Too many reports on the conspiracy nuts treat them as if their ideas are to be given the same consideration as the facts. The conspiracy theorists are given the standard J-school “fairness treatment.” Get a quote from Person A and another from Person B, present both sides evenly, and leave it at that. The Washington Post did exactly that in its piece on the conspiracy theorists last Friday. What ever the merits of that approach, it doesn’t work in this case. None of the conspiracy theories can stand up to scrutiny; that they have stood up at all is mostly because the mainstream press has not given them any real scrutiny. The academics tend to be treated with the respect any other academic would get, and because they are professors the stories are made to read just like any other dispute between professors. But in reality, the scholars peddling the 9/11 theories are practicing almost entirely outside of their realm of expertise (e.g., Griffin, the theologian) and are an ultra-tiny minority dismissed as crackpots by the vast majority of the academic world, not to mention the world of engineering. As a result, five years after nearly 3,000 innocent people were slaughtered by radical Islamic terrorists, and just as the War on Terror enters an important new phase in which President Bush has vowed to take on both al Qaeda and its allies, and Iran and its puppets, a third of the American people reportedly think the enemy is not the jihadists, who are trying to destroy us, but our own government, which is trying to defend us against the real threat. This is a serious development. If people don’t understand who the real enemy is, if they doubt the very basis upon which our response to 9/11 was initiated, they are not going to support our necessary war against those who are trying to destroy us. One may have his doubts about the Iraq war; and the Bush administration, in its justification and execution, has earned a great deal of the skepticism about that conflict. But the War on Terror is another matter entirely. The skepticism about that has not been earned; it has been manufactured. We cannot allow the truth of what happened on 9/11 to be clouded by the conspiracy nuts. America cannot afford to lose the will to fight this war.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-154) not displayed.
.
.
.
#155. To: Minerva (#152)
I loath government retirees and their minions that drive American politics. I can do anything I want BTW, bitch; to include smoking marijuana ... Are you jealous?
Whom made you a gete keeper?
Yes I am, and I've been looking around for a place to take buckeroo lessons.
A group of weird guys in long robes and lodge hats.
ooh, did the nurses let you have a little 3.2 beer, too?
The faster the Aryan Nation mob at Freedom4um are caged and chained, the better off we'll be. I’ll cheering when they are forced to behave. - Aaron
How? Because you have your long nose up JT's asshole?
Did you have this anal obsession before you hit puberty? Or did it first come on during high school gym class?
I notice you follow JT everywhere. And you think, you are clever.
You can speak freely here. I'll keep everything in strictest confidence.
Actually I don't. I'm taking funny lessons and harassing you is a class project.
C'mon, Bucky, lighten up a little would ya.
Why don't you put a picture of yourself in apeedo up on your home page.
I see .. and JT is GOD's gift to humanity because he can't make a buck other than his love for government pension plans? What other god damned BS do you have for me, this evening?
BACK OFF
First put up the picture of yourself in the speedo and then I will tell you.
Have fun.
Did you swap keyboards? How did your type suddenly get so big?
Is that Jack Casady, greatest rock bassist of all time? (Did I tell you I'm a fan of the "San Francisco Sound"? Or that Casady's a fan of cannabis? ;)) Back to the topic at hand, why don't you just chant a spell and turn fuckeroo into a toad? (Hasn't it worked with Stone? :P) Or is it that he's more fun to repartee with when he's being a prick?
Why should I? What can my personal information do for you? Are you going to beat off with a dildo all nite long?
I have a big_dick. Are you worried?
No, we want to photoshop it into a picture of you jumping on a trampoline naked and post it on our other site. Why do you ask?
I never heard of the guy.
No. But why don't you post a picture of yourself naked on your home page then. We wouldn't have to mess with photoshop that way. And if you have one of you jumping on a trampoline that would be even more helpful.
I see.
I never heard of the guy. Never heard of the Jefferson Airplane???
Christine won't let us post them here.
Is that a band?
Is that a band? OK, I get it---you're a lot younger than me.... You don't have to rub it in---except with hot oil.
The faster the Aryan Nation mob at Freedom4um are caged and chained, the better off we'll be. I’ll cheering when they are forced to behave. - Aaron
why are you attacking Minerva? she hasn't done anything to you.
Whats the URL? Christie shall alow me to do anything I want. Show me your pics, baby ... because if you don't I am going to creame you.
Looks like the unsavory type to me.
Shaddup bitch. And before poking your nose in these threads..... read 'em.
There is nothing to show until you give us one to work on.
ooooooooo. someone needs a nap.
http://www.casadybass.com/ I've no problem with Jack :)
The faster the Aryan Nation mob at Freedom4um are caged and chained, the better off we'll be. I’ll cheering when they are forced to behave. - Aaron
your home page is still blank. do you have any shots of you jumping on a trampoline?
Don't you just love JT? He is a cutie doll, ain't he?
If we were really at war, the borders would be closed.
I have more than that. I fucked you. Welcome to the Internet.
If you don't put a picture up we will think you are a wussie.
Comments (196 - 428) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#156. To: Minerva (#154)
Without people like you we would have to get jobs.
#157. To: buckeroo (#155)
Are you jealous?
#158. To: buckeroo (#156)
Whom made you a gete keeper?
#159. To: buckeroo (#155)
I can do anything I want BTW, bitch; to include smoking marijuana ... Are you jealous?
#160. To: Minerva (#158)
#161. To: buckeroo (#160)
Because you have your long nose up JT's asshole?
#162. To: Minerva (#161)
#163. To: buckeroo (#160)
#164. To: buckeroo (#162)
And you think, you are clever.
#165. To: buckeroo (#160)
#166. To: buckeroo (#162)
#167. To: Minerva (#164)
#168. To: Fred Mertz (#165)
#169. To: buckeroo (#167)
(Edited)
What other god damned BS do you have for me, this evening?
#170. To: buckeroo (#168)
Okay, jack.
#171. To: buckeroo (#168)
#172. To: Minerva (#152)
#173. To: Minerva (#166)
Why don't you put a picture of yourself in apeedo up on your home page.
#174. To: Minerva (#171)
How did your type suddenly get so big?
#175. To: buckeroo (#173)
Why should I? What can my personal information do for you? Are you going to beat off with a dildo all nite long?
#176. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#172)
s that Jack Casady,
#177. To: buckeroo (#174)
have a big_dick. Are you worried?
#178. To: Minerva (#175)
... post it on our other site.
#179. To: Minerva (#176)
that Jack Casady,
#180. To: buckeroo (#178)
#181. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#179)
Never heard of the Jefferson Airplane???
#182. To: Minerva (#181)
Never heard of the Jefferson Airplane???
#183. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, Minerva (#179)
Jack Cassady
#184. To: buckeroo (#178)
#185. To: Minerva (#180)
Christine won't let us post them here.
#186. To: Dakmar (#183)
#187. To: Morgana le Fay (#184)
#188. To: buckeroo (#185)
#189. To: buckeroo (#187)
Shaddup bitch. And before poking your nose in these threads..... read 'em.
#190. To: Minerva (#186)
#191. To: buckeroo (#185)
#192. To: Minerva (#188)
There is nothing to show until you give us one to work on.
#193. To: all (#191)
Intermission
#194. To: Morgana le Fay (#191)
#195. To: buckeroo (#192)
.
.
.