Connections


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



Site search

Twitter

    Recent Posts

    Categories

    A take on the 9/11 conspiracies

    Comments (4) Published September 22nd, 2006 under General

    I have recently had a ‘friendly’ exchange with a good friend over a link he had sent me of a 34 minute video that raises scores of questions about 9/11. The essence of the video is to raise doubt about whether what we have heard is really what happened on 9/11. Although these theories may raise important and (perhaps) necessary questions, the danger lies when they create enough confusion and history is re-written in light of these questions.

    9/11 has been and will continue to be a highly politicized event. People of all political persuasions will find ways to exploit 9/11 to defend their own agendas. The 9/11 conspiracy theories seem to read backward into history, rather than understand the events in their own context. In other words, some theorists might argue that the Bush administration allowed and was even behind the destruction on 9/11 because it wanted to wage a war on terror, etc… What the theorists are doing is redefining history in light of current events, rather than understanding the implications of history.

    Here are some lists of problems I have with the 9/11 and perhaps most conspiracy theories:

    1. Conspiracy theories are difficult to prove or disprove: I will give credit to Tyler W. who mentioned this in one of his posts a few weeks back. Most conspiracy theories make sense on some level. Conspiracy theories are usually born after events that are difficult to understand because there may be either a high level of complexity or a level of irrationality that makes us to want more clarity.
    2. Conspiracy theories prey on our human skepticism: As human beings, we are inclined to question and to doubt. Pursuing curiosity usually gives birth to new discoveries. One reason why conspiracy theories tend to find life is because it is natural for us to pursue skepticsm.
    3. The 9/11 conspiracy theories work with the assumption that our government is bad: Is our government capable of bringing the buildings down? Yes. But capability does not lead to culpability. I’m not saying that the US or governing administrations are not capable of evil. However, there are working assumptions at play here. And those assumptions are rarely identified, but they create the foundation for the theories.
    4. Expertise doesn’t matter: Every scientist, architect, and engineer that has studied why the towers (and especially Tower 7) fell on 9/11 have concluded that it is possible for the towers to have fallen because of the impact of the planes. The conspiracy theorists are smart people who are only telling us what our skepticism wants to hear. Although experts have proven the logic, theorists can ask questions in articulate manners that belittle all the experts.

    Conspiracy theories will continue to live on. Smart people (people with PhDs) are writing detailed accounts supporting the conspiracy theories. There is a whole industry at work to define our understanding of 9/11. The clever use of media, the articulation of the questions, the problem of complexity and the (gift) of skepticism have and will continue to fuel all the conspiracy theories.

    Related Posts:
    Book Giveaway #3: Misquoting Truth

    « »

    Commentary:


    Comment from Tom Pratt September 22, 2006 at 7:32 pm

    Why waste useful blog space on bizarre conspiracy theories?

    Critics of the Bush administration don’t need any help from the psych ward :^)

    I like points 1 and 4. Very true.

    Not sure what to make of point 2. Human beings aren’t inclined to question and doubt. We’re inclined to fall in line with authority. Huge and heroic efforts over thousands of years have resulted in a fitful democratic consciousness for the last few hundred years among a pretty small percentage of the world’s population. The widespread desire and freedom to question and doubt is pretty new.

    Point 3 is questionable too. Democracy assumes that our governments are bad. To me that seem like the whole point of the thing. That’s why you give everybody a vote and you create a system of checks and balances against the abuse of power. Americans who understand our political system start with the assumption that the folks in power are probably bums who will be likely be corrupted by power. That assumption is what makes American democracy unique. Or at least, that’s what used to make us unique. Now that we’re into authority and the manipulation of religion to enhance that authority I’m not sure what’s what. But I’m pretty confident we’ll come to our senses eventually.

    Comment from Eddy E September 27, 2006 at 10:45 am

    As bizarre as conspiracy theories might be, over 1 in 3 Americans believe in some sort of government conspiracy attached to 9/11.

    Comment from Romi Sharpe July 26, 2007 at 8:59 am

    Response:

    1) Your logic is conspicuously specious. All of your points apply equally to the official view as well. This is why the phrase “burden of proof” was coined and also why there is still debate as to whether this burden should be borne by the prosecution or defense. Explicitly then, all theories are difficult to prove or disprove.

    2) Alternate theories can indeed be proposed as an attempt to prey on individual or group skepticism just as they can be proposed to prey on an individual or group sense of reasonable doubt. Alternate theories generally find life however, when an inordinate number of coincidences strengthen the position of the accused thus rendering the proposal of an alternate theory plausible and worth pursuing.

    3) Although the United States government exhibits ample evidence of culpability on a great range of serious issues, including contempt for due process, and more broadly, the relevance of justice, some alternate theories are built on the assumption that reality is real and that it is knowable. The discussion of these issues, or any issue under serious scrutiny in terms of “good and evil” is built on the assumption that an omniscient presence beyond our ability to detect, is responsible for all creation and existence, and therefore we are under obligation to regard what our senses present to us through the filter of references and comparisons written in the holy Scriptures by men that this entity has charged with the responsibility of interpreting his divine will and judgment. I submit that the religious bias inherent in this argument disqualifies it from any further consideration.

    4) The investigation continues regarding the events which occurred on 9/11 and subsequent events as well. The claim that “Every scientist, architect, and engineer that has studied why the towers (and especially Tower 7) fell on 9/11 has concluded the possibility…”, (and is by inferral in agreement) is false. The admission that “(people with PhDs) are writing detailed accounts supporting the conspiracy theories”, is an acknowledgment that people with the necessary academic achievement, and thus, reputable credentials, are not in agreement with the official version. This contradicts the premise stated earlier in the paragraph obliterating the argument from within.

    Comment from Eddy E July 26, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    You’ve revived a post that is 10 months old and buried. I recognize that your point of view is that of distrust the official story of why the towers fell and that there is a larger government conspiracy behind the events of 9/11.

    Every great event in history will always have those who will question the official story. You are in a long line of men and women who have regularly sought to believe a conspiracy theory that has been hidden from the general public. At times, those were right and at times, those were simply silly theories that have taken up too much time and space in our national discourse.

    Though I am not supporter of the Bush Administration, the conspiracy theories behind 9/11 are silly at best and dangerous at worst. In my observation, it seems that it often becomes the life obsession of people to prove certain conspiracy theories for the sake of revealing the conspiracy, rather than coming to terms with the events themselves.

    Write a comment





    CAPTCHA Image
    *