Conspiracy Theorem
Last night I watched the first in a new series on BBC 2 entitled The Conspiracy Files which kicked-off the series with an examination of some of the conspiracies surrounding 9/11. In all honesty I was quite impressed with the show, it was quite even-handed and took the time to examine individual claims seriously without being dismissive which was refreshing. Its about time a main-stream media organisation bothered to examine these conspiracies seriously rather than simply dismiss or slander their proponents off-hand because doing so only leads to accusations of further complicity and cover-up which doesn’t get anyone anywhere.
I’m not a great fan of conspiracy theories exactly however one thing I learnt about history at school is that history is full of conspiracies and conspirators so to dismiss them off-hand is in itself an ignorant thing to do but one lesson can be learned from history, that is there is never a great unified conspiracy theorem. What exists are Islands of conspirators who without direct contact may have similar aspirations as other conspirator groups or who may exploit the results of those conspiracies to their own ends. To acknowledge this “randomness” can be hard for some conspiracy enthusiasts to acknowledge as they seem to fear the notion that the world really is out of control so much that they will cling on to discredited information or theories as if their lives depended on it, which is a shame because in doing so they can unwittingly become the “useful idiots” that conspirator groups so need.
I will admit that following my own experiences on 9/11 I did harbour suspicions regarding the government narrative of events and spent quite some time carrying out my own research leaving no barmy stone unturned from the suspicious collapse of the towers to “dancing Israelis”, but I can assure you dear reader that in time I was able to explain away almost every inconsistency and conspiracy theory to my satisfaction. It just seems such a shame that so few professional journalists could bother to take the time to enlighten us. I suspect that a lot of the problem was that the emotional aspects of the event meant that the story was too sensitive an issue for programme directors to tackle. Hopefully now enough time has passed for this process to reach its logical conclusion.
Below is one of my favourite 9/11 conspiracy videos doing the rounds on the internet, mostly because it starts with one of my favourite songs but also because its entertaining rubbish with the odd nugget of truth thrown in for good measure. The sci-fi movie plot line comparisons mid-way are priceless and go a long way towards discrediting the whole film but then again the wholly unproductive and obsessional manner in which the US government has attempted to withhold important information regarding the events of 9/11 has been the main contributor to this industry which has in turn gone a long way towards discrediting them as well. Which they thoroughly deserve.
In the interest of balance please find counter arguments to this video here.
Perhaps the most frightening thing about recent world events is that not only did 19 men manage to successfully attack the most heavily defended seaboard in the world, killing over 3,000 people but since then the most powerful military power in the world has been unable to defeat two third-world countries. Proving once more that technology and power are nothing in the face of true determination which is yet another example of the confusing randomness of our complex world.
The reason why the BBC showed it is not because of any sense of public duty or journalistic curiousity it is a response to the growth of popular scepticism into the official account of 9/11
I thought the documentary was pretty awful and could (but won’t) write a small thesis on the tricks and deceits it employed. The quality of most of the arguments and reasoning used was, um, poor
And why play little tricks and deceits if the case for the official story is so strong?
A couple of small and not necessarily the most significant examples
- no mention of the short trades
- no mention of the near free fall speed of the collapse of the towers
- the claim that diesel fires contributed to the structural collapse of WTC7 - which kind of begs the question what stops diesel engines melting
- how it is a 757 impact can hit and destroy the structural core of two of the largest buildings in the world but evaporate on hitting the Pentagon
- the corruption of the ‘no Israelis died in the Twin towers’ to ‘no Jews died in the twin towers’. The show mention the estimated number of Jews who died but forget to quite a figure for Israelis - and the number is?
and so on and so on. You really could go on all day
OTOH The documentary did a stand up job of cherry picking a couple of really stupid 9/11 CTs and defaming people who have doubts as being racist fantasists who show no respect for the dead or their relatives. It even managed to work in the implication that they are recycling Hezbollah propaganda.
It’s David Kelly’s turn week. I can’t wait
That’s a shame Stef, I for one would very interested in your take on any tricks you think the program played however I think your expectation was higher than mine. I didn’t have a high expectation of a program which was clearly entertainment rather than scholarly enquiry and there was little that could be covered given the length of the program. This topic could easily fill a whole series by itself.
Short trades : Not covered by the program as meaningful analysis would be pretty dull and over the head of most viewers I suspect. I was personally part of a team selected to investigate this claim at the Investment Bank which I worked at : We found no suspicious trading of any consequence.
The collapse of the Towers : I was very suspicious (and surprised) myself on the day and have investigated the subject myself. I am a physics graduate and my Father was a [structural] Engineer (running his own business). I agree many of the explanations given have been misleading/incorrect. It is my conclusion that the primary cause of the failure of the structures was the high kinetic energy of the fuel which was forced through the structure at speed where it immediately ignited as it dispersed, somewhat similarly to the way that the fuel is combusted in the chamber of a jet engine itself. This weakened the structure sufficiently at one point for one floor to collapse on the preceding, the ensuing pressure wave and vast kinetic energy simply pulverised the structure below.
Now here is where I’ll say I suspect “a conspiracy”. The building was not built quite to spec. My Father worked after his retirement as an expert witness on cases involving building failures, in almost all cases the Engineer or Architect was sued however every case was found (without exception) to be the fault of the contractor who had used substandard materials in order to cut costs.
America of the 1970s was a famous for its corrupt building industry, we now think of China as the source of most “cheap crap” well in those days it was America; just maybe so were the Twin Towers?
Your other points I would prefer to discuss through a private channel.
I’m all for people investigating themselves and I’m not dismissing all conspiracy theories but I’m saddened when they cling-on to theories which did not stand up or when its was quite clearly an innocent reporting error because it helps governments discredit ALL enquiry.
Now David Kelly… that’s another story.
Hands Up, I am one of those people who suspects that there is something seriously untoward about official accounts of that day
Come to think of it, even the BBC documentary admitted that there is some degree of official cover up
OK a cover up of incompetence rather than deliberate malice but still a cover-up nevertheless (aka a conspiracy)
Of course, many of the conspiracies could be killed stone dead if independent investigators were given access to hard physical evidence
- debris from the towers, the wreckage of the aircraft - but as I’m sure you know, the WTC rubble was shipped off to Asia PDQ and as for the
aircraft debris well… who knows where that is.
Would I claim that they are no strong counters to many 9/11 CT claims? Absolutely not. And I want to hear and see more
Do I think the BBC did anything to add to that body of counter argument? Nope
Instead, the producers pulled all sorts of sneaky little tricks and told outright lies.
Some people have already started documenting those tricks and lies…
eg. http://debunking-bbc.blogspot.com/
If the producers dealt a straight hand, regardless of whether I personally agreed with their conclusions or not, I would have no complaints.
As it is, I’m left feeling pretty sure that the producers set out to make a calculated hit piece, by fair means or foul, and I’m left wondering why
I’ve just shown the Mrs the latest cut of Loose Change. She’s very much non aligned on these matters. After seeing LC and the BBC show last night
she said to me something like ‘That BBC show didn’t even start to answer the big questions in that video’…
Let’s see how the Beeb deals with the Kelly case. My money’s on the BBC playing exactly the same kind of stunt, using very similar techniques
“As it is, I’m left feeling pretty sure that the producers set out to make a calculated hit piece, by fair means or foul, and I’m left wondering why?”
- Ego.
“which kind of begs the question what stops diesel engines melting”
Erm… How about the engine’s cooling system?
But the conspiracy theorists are not always daft. Remember that “conspiracy nutter” about the tube bombings on CUK? He said that Acetone peroxide said to have been used did not burn but people were badly burned. Problem is, he was right. I have not yet seen any adequate explanation. Check the facts on TATP and news on the bombings for yourself.
I think Loose Change was discredited as a counterconspiracy documentary. I didn’t see it but the erguments against seemed credible. In any piece of disinformation there is 10% truth and the rest are lies and loose change is of this kind. I liked also the image that a person from the intelligence community gave to Israelis art students whom the FBI think were meant to cover up for other real spying on US soil: this person said ‘Remember the movie Victor Victoria, a woman playing a man playing a woman’. I think it applies to Loose change and other conspiracy theories meant to discredit other conspiracy theories. And I think there is concern for conspiracy theories…Imagine we would be able to find out any wrong doing, intentional or not ?
The way I see things is we live in a web of lies. If we are lied to concerning lets say WMD in Iraq or any other serious matter, there is a reasonable possibility that we may be lied to concerning other aspects of this ‘War on Terror’. I think the other issue also is that not only the media are not informing us on these matters properly and doing their own investigations but when they inform they are not doing good work, their work is sloppy…We have to get used to the idea that there is no investigative journalism anymore.
In all this debate also people are still talking about theories and never about facts. I say, for every theory of conspitration to be credible it must be about facts but then again we know nothing of many of the facts surrounding 9/11 and that,s what reinforces my opinion that people are trying to plant disinformation and bad conspiracy theories to deligitmise any questioning and distract from facts by adding many false ‘facts’.
In the Spanish American war, a US ship (The Main) sank in Havana bay killing some 300 people. The US condemned Spain and used this incident to enter a war with Spain and later take control of Cuba. An official US investigation into the matter in the seventies concluded that it was an accident.
@xoggoth
I suppose I asked for that - one cheap shot does deserve another. But cooling system or not, diesel burns at something like 700-900C. Steel will start to melt at something like 1400C. Sure, as Wolfie suggests, there might have been something seriously wrong with the construction of the WTC buildings but, in the absence of any investigation, that’s as speculative as suggesting the building might have been taken down deliberately. Now, if any of the investigations into 9/11 had suggested the possibility of negligent construction and an investigation had been initiated that would be a completely different story…
Re. TATP
The Official Narrative into 7/7 is coy when it comes to identifying the explosives used on the day. Why? The media has been primed by unnamed sources and has run with the DIY TATP story and most people will think that’s the end of it but why the reluctance to officially acknowledge what materials were used?
Again, there’s no direct evidence that there’s anything untoward in the official account but there’s no evidence that it’s straight up either.
Stef. I assume that 700′C - 900′C you quote is the nomal temperature for fuel burning in the open air but burning heated vapour in a heated fast draft of air caused by the chimney effect of the fire itself is a very different thing. Wikipedia lists the theoretical flame temperature of oil as over 2484′K - you will never get that hot, but closer to that figure than 900′C I would bet. If there were lift shafts, stairways etc. it would act rather like a huge bunsen burner. It’s how industry can easily melt steel, cement, glass etc. using oil or coal.
Tend to agree on the TATP, it is the lack of an enquiry because Blair will not face the truth about the contributing causes that has fuelled the conpiracy theories.
PS Also steel would not need to melt to lose significant strength.
There might not be a ‘one conspiracy’ but there sure is a global plan. I’ve posted on this till I’m blue in the face.
@xoggoth
Yup, I appreciate that you can achieve higher temperatures in a controlled environment but the pictures of the WTC buildings I have seen from that day don’t seem to support that idea. Admittedly, they don’t conclusively disprove it either. What I see are relatively limited fires, on the exteriors anyway, giving off lots of sooty smoke. That’s not consistent with an efficient fire drawing in shed loads of oxygen IMHO
And yup the steel would have been weakened before actually melting but my understanding (from a short time spent in the HSE) is that skyscrapers are built 2-3x stronger than needs be - which gets back to Wolfie’s point about the buildings maybe not having been put together that well. I’m open to that idea as, even though I have plenty of other issues about 9/11, the thought that those buildings could have been secretly wired up for demolition does push the possibility envelope somewhat
…and not forgetting the apparent speed of the collapse of the three buildings
I’ve seen some reasonable attempts at debunking work is some places, eg. here
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
but not enough to put the issue to bed IMHO. And given that the high speed of collapse is so central to many 9/11 conspiracy theories it bothers me that the BBC show and other mainstream debunking efforts ignore or fluff the issue