From the moment the first plane hit one of the twin towers on the morning of 11 September 2001, the conspiracy machine jumped into high gear.

I admit that I was even sucked into to a couple of those whacked out ideas about our own government attacking us to create the mood to go to war. Hey! It’s been done before, right? Ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin? That’s neither here nor there, though. A shadowy effort on the part of our own government to kill thousands and cost us billions just doesn’t seem logical, you know. Well, there are still those who believe this kind of stuff.

Skeptic.com published a very good piece about this by Chris Mohr on their website today. It’s a long read, but you should take a moment or two out of your busy day and read it. Conspiracies and the rantings of their progenitors can be entertaining at times, but occasionally the crap has to be put out on the curb. Mohr does a good job of taking out the garbage.

It was a terrible event in the history of this country… and the world. Let’s learn from it and move on now.

From the intro to the article:

Ground Zero, New York City, N.Y., Sept. 17, 2001. An aerial view shows a small portion of where the World Trade Center collapsed following the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. Surrounding buildings were heavily damaged by the debris and massive force of the falling twin towers. Clean-up efforts are expected to continue for months.
Is there any scientific validity to the claims of 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracists about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings?

This Sunday marks the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center Buildings. 9/11 conspiracists such as Richard Gage (a member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) continue to assert that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. In this week’s eSkeptic, we present Chris Mohr’s thorough analysis of the controlled demolition theory, based on his debate with Richard Gage earlier this year.

Read the entire article: 9/11 and the Science of Controlled Demolitions

Good afternoon.

~Eric

Image credits:  U.S. Navy photo by Chief Photographer’s Mate Eric J. Tilford. Hosted by http://www.skeptic.com

Advertisements

About V. T. Eric Layton

vtel57, Nocturnal Slacker

4 responses »

  1. Sadly, there are always conspiracy theories about everything. The most obvious rebuttal is that if this really were a conspiracy, far too many people would have to have been in on it to make it work, and it is simply not credible, given that so many people were part of it, that there has been no leak. But generally, it’s not worth arguing with conspiracy theorists. The best we can do on this anniversary is to remember quietly those innocents who died in this atrocity, and indeed, to remember all others who have died at the hands of terrorists all over the world – Bali, Mumbai, London, Madrid, throughout Pakistan and the Middle East (terrorist attacks are so common in these countries they hardly make the headlines these days) … The list goes on.

    • “The best we can do on this anniversary is to remember quietly those innocents who died in this atrocity, and indeed, to remember all others who have died at the hands of terrorists …”

      Sadly, terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. It’s also always the WRONG way to institute change. Is peaceful interaction between humans even possible? I have my doubts. 😦

  2. The problems with debunking any 9/11 conspiracy theories are two-fold. First, any attempt to debunk is typically assumed to have been part of the original conspiracy and is then viewed as further evidence that it happened rather than showing it didn’t. Example: Regarding the now-famous debunking by Popular Mechanics, One of the staffers at the magazine is a distant cousin of Michael Chertoff, who was one of Bush’s Homeland Security directors. Hence the assumption that this staffer somehow forced the magazine to research and write the series of articles.

    (Unfortunately for the crazies, Chertoff didn’t become head of H.S. until early 2005, just a couple weeks before the articles were published. In other words, he couldn’t have orchestrated it.)

    Second, there are far too many aspects of the 9/11 attacks. Debunk one, and suddenly, some other one becomes a sticking point. For example, the assumption that WTC7 fell due to a “controlled demolition.” Even if you manage to prove that’s not the case, the crazies will counter with, “OK, so maybe planes did bring down the WTC towers and those brought down WTC7 … but the Air Force could have shot down those planes before they hit. They didn’t, so we know the government still must have been behind 9/11!” Once one then shows how the A.F. did not, in fact, have time enough to shoot the planes down, the crazies will just move on to something else.

    Really, trying to engage them is futile and an exercise in dealing with immaturity. It’s not worth it. Best just to dismiss the crazies as the childish loons they are and just have done with the whole thing.

    • The problems with debunking any 9/11 conspiracy theories are two-fold. First, any attempt to debunk is typically assumed to have been part of the original conspiracy

      It has ever been thus.

      Really, trying to engage them is futile and an exercise in dealing with immaturity. It’s not worth it. Best just to dismiss the crazies as the childish loons they are and just have done with the whole thing.

      For the most part, I agree with you here. However, some conspiracies are real. You just have to pick your conspiracies wisely. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s