Conspiracy

 

 

An email from one of my sisters came in this morning.

 Hey mr.,mr.

Bill's son in Europe is inundating us with info that the 9/11 attacks were a US conspiracy, we planted bombs in the buildings or something. I've mentioned that ALL the air traffic controllers would have had to be IN on the plan, to no avail, these conspiracy people are hell bent (like Rosie O'Donnell). Any sites or info you've come across to help us to send to him?

As it happens, I recently ran into somone else who seemed normal and smart enough until he brought up 9-11 and headed down the conspiracy path. It was a frustrating conversation that led to a truly drastic and desperate act on my part: I paid my tab and slipped out of the pub.

So this time, inspired by that wonderful feeling one gets when an older sibling, with whom I remember watching this live, asks me to help her with her homework, I responded:

"

Ah yes,

One of the things I have learned from working with undergraduates and hanging out in bars is that it is pretty much impossible to score even a point with a conspiracy theorist let alone win an argument. And for a while in college I was pretty passionate about conspiracy theories around the Kennedy assassination, so I understand a bit. As we mature and grow older we start to realize that the sustained level of competence, loyalty, and secretiveness among a lot of players to actually make one of these conspiracies work is pretty much impossible among human beings. In this case, would the planning have been done by same huge US government cabal who planned the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan? Right. No, it had to be done by a very small group of people, indeed there is evidence that a number of the hijackers, who weren't the pilots, didn't know the end game when they got on the planes, just their individual roles. They may have assumed this would be a hijacking and hostage operation. That would have made sense both interms of secrecy and sanity. 

There is a good explanation of the conspiracy impulse in the Wikipedia 9-11 page:

"Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracy common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. 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."[165] Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories emerge a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

 

 

Still the best and most clearly written summation was put together by, of all people, Popular Mechanics.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Scientific American did a report too.

On a personal note, I am an old friend of the executive director of the 9-11 commission, Phil Zelikow. A long time ago I helped a bit to get him elected to the Acton (MA) School committee, and rode the train with him. Phil would have to have been a very key player in inventing the lie for history. He's smart, but he's not that smart. No one is.

All for now,

Billy

 

warning, Penn Gillette uses swear words.

 

Not to say that there isn't good reason for paranoia:

  

 

Which brings me to the real point of this post, a fond good-bye to William F. Buckley. I always had a soft spot for him. And of course he was a sailor.  Once upon a time children, there was intelligence and civility in public affairs television. This is from 1969. It's a little long, but you'll be smarter for watching it, not to mention a little spooked by its relevance.