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: 35076
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 (1-366) not displayed.
.
.
.
#367. To: Diana (#362)
Are you real cute? Look, I understand that Christine wants some of us to be as pretty as television stars so that when I post, I cast a possible image of appeal. Her heart is in the right place as she works to strengthen the communications capability of the forum. And I applaud her. Her work has showed significant gain about the forum for the same. But, I am afraid to publicly post my own image. I am afraid, as it could perform great harm to not just myself but to the members of this fine website. I am impressed that anyone cares about my physical appearance anyways. It really doesn't matter what I look like.
Chickeshit!
Minerva - If I revealed myself in public, no matter how horrid I appear would you care to realize that background to save America? You wouldn't make fun of me; would you give me an oath of honor? - Buckeroo
JT says you read Maureen Dowd editorials all the time. Do you like her or do you just read them because she is good looking?
Not true, not true. Talking anuses are always of amusement. Show.....
Well, for you, I put up my 4um homepage. And no the data you have about Maureen Dowd is incorrect. I don't like any gossip columnist.
I've seen the picture on your home page before. That's not really you. That probably means the one I got on the PM and posted above is correct.
Minerva....the Buck pic....what about that pose?
the picture you posted above does look like buckeroo. there was a headshot of him posted wearing a cowboy hat. the face looked like the face in your picture. you could only see the head and shoulders in the other picture though.
This may be the rest:
If we were really at war, the borders would be closed.
Well ...... he did drop us a hint when he told us that he was the 'Liberace of the Internet'.
So he gobbles the dong?
Whom do you actually know? JT? Did he send that picture to you? You see, that's him. He is a whinny, little, torn up old skinny retard, whom thinks he understands concepts like, "freedom", "liberty" and "rights." Truthfully, all he has is a mouth that suggests he knows but he really doesn't. But you have to give him credit. He tried real hard to make it in life. Even as a failure within himself.
Sooooooo not true.
'Smoking the Pole' may be a more delicate way to put it. This is a family orienteed forum after all.
No, JT did not send it. The person who did swore me to secrecy.
The picture has buckeroo going. That of course means that it really is him.
Sorry, and of course you're right.
An important clue here, you know they say people look like their dogs; well, here's Bucky's dog from a reliable source
A less reliable clue, but here is his cat fluffy.
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
I've seen a couple of pics of this dog posted on the web. Do you know the history of this poor thing? Disease, abuse, etc?
I'm not sure, I did a Google with the key word ugliest. I'm just glad I already ate.
Awesome. Assassination is our friend.
Here is Sam the world's uglist dog's blogsite: http://samugliestdog.typepad.com/b log/ The Website: Do you know the history of this poor thing? Disease, abuse, etc? That's Sam, the "World's Ugliest Dog" several years running. He was (he died recently) a particularly ugly specimen of an extremely ugly breed called a Chinese Crested Hairless. And he was blind which gave his eyes that peculiar creepiness.
I love animals, but how could you not shoot that thing if it turned up in your yard some morning?
I know what you mean, it looks like a canine manifestation of Bush's inner being.
Are you kidding? Can you imagine how much fun you could have with that cat on Halloween?
I just like to know what the posters look like. I tend to imagine posters looking a certain way, and I've been surprised at times when I've seen pictures of posters who I've posted with or know of. I'm often very wrong in what I picture posters to be like when I see what they really look like.
The dog in that picture looks like the dog who won an America's Most Ugly Dog contest.
I have composed a Haiku in honor of buckeroo: A man of spirits, Do you know the history of this poor thing? Disease, abuse, etc? It's a Chinese Crested who is very old and that breed gets very ugly in old age. The lady who had the dog who won the Ugly Dog contest had him/her since it was a puppy, and it's led a very happy life, if it's the same dog, looks like it could be.
See posts #392 and #393 Yes, it is Sam, the late great world's ugliest dog. ;-)
Morgan posted a Maureen Dowd editorial for you to read this evening. You should tell her thank you.
Excellent Haiku. Here's my effort in honor of buckeroo: An odd duck,
Does buckeroo really run a gerbil ranch?
Are you claiming "make-believe" persons? You don't see "dead-people" too, do you?
I already answered this for you. (1) A real person who (2) didn't want me to tell you their name. JT says you run a gerbil ranch. How did you get into such a strange business?
Comments (407 - 428) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAre you not cute?
#368. To: buckeroo (#367)
#369. To: Minerva (#368)
I am physically ugly. And as I think about it, I am sorry for all the harm I have performed; but understand that while in active service of the country, the risks about our being are secondary to none. I guess you can say that I am Chickeshit! afraid of my appearance to be publicly known. The horrors I personally interceded for our country has continuously lead to the admonishment about my contemporary life; an ugly life, not-with- standing public scorn and humiliation.
#370. To: buckeroo (#369)
#371. To: Diana (#364)
Can you post that one please please? I want to see your picture!
Someone just sent me this shot of buckeroo. It might not be his best picture, but its the best we have.
#372. To: buckeroo (#367)
It really doesn't matter what I look like.
#373. To: Minerva (#370)
#374. To: buckeroo, Diana (#373)
#375. To: Minerva (#374)
#376. To: Minerva (#374)
#377. To: Morgana le Fay (#376)
you could only see the head and shoulders in the other picture though.
#378. To: Jethro Tull (#375)
Minerva....the Buck pic....what about that pose?
#379. To: Minerva (#378)
'Liberace of the Internet'
#380. To: Minerva (#374)
#381. To: buckeroo (#380)
But you have to give him credit. He tried real hard to make it in life. Even as a failure within himself.
#382. To: Jethro Tull (#379)
So he gobbles the dong?
#383. To: buckeroo (#380)
Whom do you actually know? JT? Did he send that picture to you?
#384. To: Jethro Tull (#381)
#385. To: Minerva (#382)
This is a family orienteed forum after all.
#386. To: Minerva (#384)
#387. To: Minerva (#384)
#388. To: Jethro Tull (#385)
try this:
#389. To: Ferret Mike (#386)
#390. To: Brian S (#389)
#391. To: Dakmar (#388)
#392. To: Brian S (#389)
(Edited)
#393. To: Brian S (#389)
I've seen a couple of pics of this dog posted on the web.
#394. To: Ferret Mike (#387)
A less reliable clue, but here is his cat fluffy.
#395. To: SmokinOPs (#394)
"I love animals, but how could you not shoot that thing if it turned up in your yard some morning?"
#396. To: SmokinOPs (#394)
I love animals, but how could you not shoot that thing if it turned up in your yard some morning?
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#397. To: buckeroo, Minerva (#367)
It really doesn't matter what I look like.
#398. To: Ferret Mike (#386)
An important clue here, you know they say people look like their dogs; well, here's Bucky's dog from a reliable source
#399. To: Jethro Tull (#391)
This cyber liberace,
We suspect smokes pole.
#400. To: Brian S (#389)
I've seen a couple of pics of this dog posted on the web.
#401. To: Diana (#398)
#402. To: buckeroo (#380)
#403. To: Minerva (#399)
(Edited)
This ether Liberace,
Good golly, Miss Molly, he sure like a ball.
#404. To: Jethro Tull (#403)
#405. To: Minerva (#383)
The person who did swore me to secrecy.
#406. To: buckeroo (#405)
Are you claiming "make-believe" persons?
.
.
.