Originally posted by budaruskie
Can you imagine how future generations are going to treat us knowing that so many of us fell for something so obviously silly? I can hear it now,
"Really Dad, you thought planes could knock down buildings they didn't even hit? Where are the other planes or Bin Laden...oh yeah that's right
they flew his family out of the country because they were such good friends with the President." That alone is enough to never ever trust someone's
judgement ever again. We will be known as the most naive, selfish, and ridiculous generation in human history.
In my contemporary American history class one day we decided to discuss the 9/11 Report as that had been agreed upon as a class. Being a
discussion-oriented university honors class, we got into some interesting discussions. All smart people in such a class with a strong foundation in
logic led by a practicing historian. We had divided the report into chunks and were discussing 9/11 when one of our class members brought up an
interesting point of dissent from an author known as David Ray Griffin. He had spoken out against the report and the official story of 9/11.
"Fine," we all thought. After all, dissent is good and we had finished analyzing historical essays criticizing Reagan's supposed greatness as well
as the presidential administrations of Truman and Kennedy. Differing opinions are always welcome.
Of course then the person who brought up the book mentioned Mr. Griffin had talked about controlled demolition. We all let out a collective sigh.
"What's the author's background and fields of expertise," one precarious girl asked as usually is done in meta-analysis.
"He worked at the Claremont School of Theology," the student replied. We all laughed a little and further went on to discover his area of expertise
as having to do with theology, which was quite hilarious considering the unspoken truth that Christian apologetics and similar lines of reasoning are
not suited for academic analysis of events.
So one person brought up a video of this guy speaking somewhere and we immediately knew the dreaded secret of his...he was a truther! He believed in
controlled demolition, the hijackers being alive, some conspiracy to siphon oil from the Middle East, and the usual truther line of piecemeal
So then we discussed it and I stepped up to the plate immediately being infuriated at the blatant misconceptions, lies, and misinformation this
dangerous individual spread.
I pointed out very calmly that there is a reason why so few experts and academics questions the official story of what happened (at least the parts
that are substantive that is). That is because these truther theories this guy spews have been debunked, are illogical, and have no evidence backing
I pointed out the example of the WTC towers. Could they have been bombed? It certainly is possible, there was an attack on them in the 1990s. However,
truthers assert that they were bombed to bring them down by the government which has more than a few fatal flaws.
First it presumes that the government sits down somewhere and plots to kill Americans on American soil for selfish reasons and that this word carries
weight all the way down through the people who are supposed to rig an entire building or two full of explosives without any whistleblowers or moral
objectionists. Not only does this go against most humans' ethics it also goes against history's documentation of whistleblowers for every little
event and for one this large it is absolutely unbelievable there can be no whistleblowers or people could practically set this up without anyone
Second is feasibility like mentioned above.
Third is the fact that if bombs were to be used, then the use of planes would be pointless. The government could just have easily (much more so in
fact) said a terrorist bombed the buildings to collapse them and be done with it. This added layer of asinine complexity pretty much shoots the bomb
theory in the foot.
Fourth, as if the "theory" were not listing already, the assertion that the plane crashes couldn't cause the buildings to collapse has been
debunked ad nauseam by materials and structural engineers and the official conclusion has been supported by nearly every major civil engineering
organization in the world both governmental and non-governmental.
So concluding bombs were used is a pretty baseless assertion and to you Mr. Person I Quoted, I would tell my kids just the opposite:
"People always want conspiracy theories. It gives purpose to their otherwise meaningless lives and it gives them a cause to believe in that they
think makes them 'special' apart from the otherwise 'ignorant' masses. Unfortunately, people fail to realize through either a lack of
understanding or learned experience, that human beings make fallacious assumptions every day. Life is governed by heuristic biases and baseless
assertions that appeal to various aspects of the human condition. Although conspiracy theories are a fundamental aspect into the human psychological
experience, their evidentiary impact from a scientifically methodological framework utilizing inductive reasoning, is pretty much nil considering so
many academics and actual experts do not lend them any credence."
I leave you all with quotes from some great minds that have denounced this, in my opinion, rather dangerous opinion of some grand 9/11 conspiracy (I
believe it is dangerous because it shows how little grasp some have on the actual process of critical thinking as some of my supporting quotes
- The famous linguist and theoretician, Noam Chomsky:
"the evidence that has been produced is essentially worthless' and while the American government stood to benefit from the incident, 'every
authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11th.' He argues that the enormous risk of an information leak, 'it is a very porous system
and secrets are very hard to keep', and consequences of exposure for the Republican party would have made such a conspiracy foolish to attempt. He
dismisses observations cited by conspiracy proponents saying, 'if you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would
instantly discount that evidence,'
arguing that even when a scientific experiment is carried out repeatedly in a controlled environment,
phenomena and coincidences remain that are unexplained."
- MIT professor of engineering (specialty in materials engineering), Thomas W. Eager (he talks about truther darling Steven Jones):
"He's a physicist, not an engineer,' MIT's Eagar said. 'Dr. Jones brought a lot of academic credibility to these arguments, but I've read
through his paper and on each point it has not taken me more than five minutes to study it and come up with a credible scientific reply.' For
example, the puffs of smoke could have been air and dust generated as pieces of the floors collapsed, or by cement collapsing, which regularly causes
horizontal puffs of dust. Eagar also said it is accepted science that the jet fuel burned hot enough in the twin towers to collapse them. 'I haven't
seen anything from Dr. Jones or anyone else (in the 9/11 truth movement) that can't be discredited.' Critics say a technical rebuttal isn't worth
the effort. They say the truth movement's demolition theory would have required a large group to set hundreds of charges on dozens of floors in three
buildings. They say such a conspiracy would require thousands of still-silent accomplices and ignores other data. 'These people (in the 9/11 truth
movement) use the 'reverse scientific method,' Eagar said. 'They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their
conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.
- Harvard University professors Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule:
"[9/11 truth theories] typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational
influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an
attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy...those who hold conspiracy theories
typically suffer from a crippled epistemology...
Hell, even Bill Maher has this to say about it:
"How big a lunatic do you have to be to witness two jet airliners filled with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, triggering a massive inferno
that burned for two hours and then think ‘Well, if you believe that’s the cause…'"
Here is a skeptic's website's debunking of the truthers:
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Skeptics
And Popular Mechanic's debunking as well:
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Popular Mechanics
Seriously I could go on, what do truthers have to show for their analysis?