Perhaps an Alternative View Would do?

Apparently the 9/11 conspiracy movement is still going strong.  It’s too bad, cause those that waste their time on this pet subject could really do a lot of great things if they devoted as much time and energy to anything else.  But the reason why conspiracy theories always have a decent movement attached to them is simple, conspiracy theories attempt to explain the seemingly unexplainable.  That and they also play with our emotions.

Dangerously long post ahead…

After a tragic and horrific event such as 9/11 happens people become very emotional and their minds start racing a mile a minute to explain what happened.  We want answers and we want to seek the truth.  So much so, that when a complex theory that attempts to explain everything comes along, it looks as tasty to our brain as a chocolate cake to a fat kid.

If you watch 9/11 conspiracy films, and I have seen most all of them, they all follow the same pattern:

  1.   First they start off with a statement of the event that happened and how they grieve for the loss as well.  And will usually follow this up with an American flag and how as citizens it’s our right to have answers and to seek them.
  2.   Then you get the line, “We compiled the evidence you decide”.  Well hell, this is wonderful right?  They are unbiased and leave the decision making up to us.  That’s how it should be.
  3.   Then comes the dramatic music and the soft spoken narration, which is usually a female voice that has an appealing quality to it.
  4.   Followed by loads of facts BS.

It’s all a bunch of BS to get you to buy into someone else’s pet theory.  To me it’s nothing more than good advertising and knowing how to play to your audience.  But in some cases it’s just downright criminal.  Take the article linked right before this sentence, Popular Mechanics does an excellent job explaining the myths of 9/11.

But the one piece of info that hit me the hardest was this:

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: “The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions.” Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying “there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.” The article continues, “Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.”

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process “pancaking,” and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. “When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it’s going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, “but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception.”

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. “I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building,” he tells PM. “I only said that that’s what it looked like.”

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. “I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line.” But saw something else: “The paymaster of Romero’s research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement.” Romero responds: “Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years.”

The poor guy gets mis-quoted and now his reputation is on the line.  I have read other accounts of the same guy not giving out quotes anymore, even to defend himself, cause the conspirators take it and use it to their advantage.  Not caring for the fact they are ruining Romero’s career.  He is somewhat of an outcast now in his field for the whole fiasco, or at least he was as of 05.

Which is why I have disgust and udder disdain for conspiracy theories.  They have and do ruin careers of scientists and good people.  And it’s just a shame because it means there will be less and less individuals who will be willing to take on these crackpot theories in the future for fear of having a ruined career.

But you don’t have to take my word for it…  It’s a conspiracy, the government sank the Titanic

Or there is always this gem…  Despite the sarcasm, Maddox makes an excellent point.  If the US gov or some faction of the US gov had no problem killing 3000 people and getting away with it.  How is it possible they could let a college student uncover the truth?  When all they would have to do is shut him up.

Or this funny one, “Dont be Fooled, What Seems Simple is Usually a Complicated Conspiracy.”

But if you got time to kill here is a link to the PBS show Democracy Now where there was a debate between the Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics magazine, the Editor of Debunking 9/11 Myths (A book put out by Popular Mechanics) and the creator and write of the Loose Change “Documentary” with the researcher for this “Documentary”.

If you choose not to watch I can spare you the details.  The Loose Change guys come off as pompous arrogant assholes that lose their “cool” when their ideas are challenged.  They were scoffing at nearly every counter-point the Popular Mechanics guys offered and even laughed at a couple points as well.  The Popular Mechanics guys obviously not only knew what they were talking about, but were very respectful and handled themselves and the content well.

What I really want to do with this post is hopefully open some eyes into the world of conspiracy theories, specifically 9/11.  It’s hard to let go of them, I understand this well, but in the end conspiracy theories are a waste of time.  Conspirators claim to be no experts, but rather just a sort of journalist presenting evidence.  But if this is the case, why do conspiracy theories leave out evidence, misquote experts, dismiss evidence presented by experts, and just flat out lie?  If their theories are as strong as they claim then there is no need for this right?

Feel free to comment on your beliefs, I would be interested to hear them…

54 thoughts on “Perhaps an Alternative View Would do?

  1. If I wanted to learn some new information about 9/11, why the hell would I read about from an ex English Professor? Especially someone that buys into the JFK conspiracy even though those have been widely debunked.

  2. I’m not sure, nor will I take the time to read all 51 comments, but how you said an event happens and our brains are hungry for an explanation. It can go BOTH ways. And it also explains many things.

  3. @John, 51 comments is hardly anything to read when some posts on this site have eclipsed 400 comments. It might be a lot for you, but if you really were interested in getting engaged in this conversation I think you could tackle it. Besides not all comments are essential for the discussion on 9/11.

    You are right it can go both ways. But the advantage always goes to science. Un-biased explanations based on sound evidence and facts will always beat out some douche college kid that thinks the explanation for a HUGE event has to be just as huge.

  4. @Webs I agree on what you said 100%.

    What I was saying is that the response to my statement may have already been IN the comments, but I admittedly was too lazy to go through them, so I just posted it anyways.
    And I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me on the second part or not. lol.
    What I meant by “it can go both ways. and it also explains many things.” (as vague as it was) was that i find the 9/11 conspiracies and religion to be the epitome of “our brains are hungry for an explanation.” i was in fact agreeing with him by stating a rebuttal. as odd as it is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.