Gorn’s Position Statement: “9/11 Truth”

Jump to Comments

On this blog, you will read many opinions about the “9/11 Truth” conspiracy theories. You will not see much countervailing opinion. In all cases this information should be understood as opinion and not fact. The focus of the information presented by “9/11 Truth” will be, often, of a technical nature, and thus difficult for the lay citizen to confirm with assurance, and potentially misleading without context. The emotion of the subject yields a particular level of risk. This is my position on the subject and is the opinion of the author only, and not any other TPZoo member.

 

My approach to the issue is based on the assumption that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In a world full of extraordinary claims with a very high percentage of falsehood, this kind of thoughtfully considered skepticism is a defense against the slippery slope of credulity.

I begin with the following conspiracy summary: “A large group of individuals, numbering at least 50 and more probably in the hundreds if not thousands, and including the key elements of the empowered leadership of the United States government, conspired to achieve the following: to hijack four commercial jets filled with American civilians, fly two of those jets into the WTC towers, fly a third into the ground in Pennsylvania, presumably missing its target, and destroy the fourth in an unknown and undetected fashion. (The latter is often assumed to have plowed into the Pentagon, but components of the conspiracy theory postulate that evidence indicates that it is impossible for the plane to have flown into the Pentagon); intentionally fired a missile into the Pentagon; knowingly murdered 3000 American civilians; caused billions of dollars in damage; extensively loaded the WTC towers including WTC7, well in advance of these events, with explosives designed for a controlled implosion of the structures, presumably for the purpose of enhancing the dramatic impact of the event; maintained total secrecy from 9/11 through to this day; and framed Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan for this event as a pretext for attacking Iraq and Saddam Hussein and initiating a general Middle East war.”

My assessment of this conspiracy theory, as summarized above, is that it constitutes an extraordinary claim. My assumption is based on numerous factors. For example, conspiracies are difficult to implement and even more difficult to cover up. This is true for even simple conspiracies involving only a few people, much less one involving Americans murdering, in pre-meditated fashion, thousands of innocent fellow citizens. Conspiracies are even more difficult to undertake in open societies with strong democratic institutions and traditions. The expertise required to achieve the stated conspiracy includes, at a minimum, structural engineering, metallurgy, explosives, urban demolition, and avionics. Cooperation from commanders involved with operations such as missile launching would be required (and willingness to fire upon their own defense headquarters building), as well as cooperation from all key members of the President’s inner circle, the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA. That is only the beginning of the required web. If all elements of the variants on this theory are to be believed, even New York City firefighters and on-site reporters would have to be included.

It is my belief that a conspiracy of this magnitude, and its subsequent successful and ongoing cover-up, is virtually an intractable achievement. Further, there should have been better ways to achieve the goal of launching a war in the Middle East. For example, one might consider it more direct to have framed Saddam Hussein rather than Osama bin Laden. Further, a less dramatic attack than WTC could have been staged, or one not involving total building collapse. An attack on the Pentagon alone would have been a clear act of war, and the occupants of the Pentagon could have been more easily controlled. There would have been far less civilian collateral damage. For that matter, a staged devastating attack could have been thwarted (equally staged) just prior to implementation, not only revealing an act of war, but also rendering the US administration both competent and heroic. Instead, in order to accept the premises of the theory, we must believe that these otherwise brilliant conspirators chose a scenario that would make them appear negligent and incompetent.

Just because a conspiracy theory constitutes an extraordinary claim, does not mean that the theory is not true. But, we should insist on extraordinary evidence before embracing such a claim.

The 9/11 Truth theorists present hundreds of references which are quite compelling and at least superficially very convincing. Although they do not always appreciate comparisons with other conspiracy theories, the fact is that compelling and convincing stories are the norm among conspiracy theories. It is also the norm for conspiracy theories to be wrong.

I do not insist that the technical data presented in support of this particular theory is false. Some or all of it may be true, some or all of it may be false. Some or all of the technical claims may be true, but do not reflect the truth of what actually happened (for example, they may be true in some contexts but not in the context where the theory uses them; or, additional factors that would impact the results may have been missed or ignored by the theorists). Indeed I have no special knowledge or authority to know for a certainty which of the information is true or false. Typically none of the participants of blogs like this will have authoritative knowledge. As with all lay readers, I can rely only on the assessment of acknowledged experts who have no axe to grind.

To make a fair initial assessment for this conspiracy theory, it is necessary to consider explanations presented by 9/11 Truth supporters, but it is also critical to consider explanations presented by expert testimony that does not come from the 9/11 Truth supporters. The claims and counter-claims can be compared side-by-side, and lay readers can make a determination of which sources seem to them most credible.

I do not claim to have analyzed all the evidence in complete detail. I freely admit that I have not done so. However, I have read enough from both sides to conclude that I don’t know for a certainty which view is the more accurate one. Typically, evidence presented from one side is directly and specifically contradicted by expert testimony on the other side.

Because my lay opinion cannot determine which side is the more technically accurate, I must provisionally judge both sides as equally meritorious and worthy of further investigation and reconciliation by unrelated, objective third party experts. It is unlikely that we will achieve such an objective, third party analysis at least until the current US administration is terminated.

And finally, because I cannot render an absolute judgment on the technical evidence supporting 9/11 Truth, and I do not see any evidence of leaks or confessions from the alleged ranks of conspirators, I conclude that extraordinary evidence of the sort necessary to accept this theory does not, at this time, exist. Further, I have noted that the “debunking” view typically represents the simplest answers requiring the fewest logical leaps. As Occam’s Razor indicates, such answers tend to be the correct ones. It is also a documented fact that at least some of the conspiracy evidence is very selective in terms of evidence presented, taking photos, portions of photos, quotes, and other evidence out of context and bypassing elements that would not support the desired conclusions. Such tactics, if by intention or by oversight, do not bode well for the overall case.

Therefore, I provisionally reject the extraordinary claim until such time as conclusive extraordinary evidence is presented that convincingly shows all information within its full context, and reconciles the differences present in recognized expert opinion between the two sides.

Note that my assessment does not forgive negligence nor incompetence on the part of the US administration, nor rule out the possibility that at some level “negligence” may have been intentional. I merely, and provisionally, rule out the most extraordinary claim presented: the multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, premeditated mass murder scenario, and massive ongoing coverup, summarized above.

As a final point, I will state this: regardless of whether 9/11 was perpetrated by our government, perpetrated by Al Qaeda, or perpetrated by some other force, it happened. We cannot make it go away. What we can do, however, is work constructively for a better world. Setting aside the fact of 9/11 itself, we have an ongoing problem to resolve, manifest by six years of corruption, abuse, negligence, mismanagement, cronyism, assault on civil liberties, assault on international norms and friendships, assault on the Constitution, and assault on the rule of law, all at the hands of the George W. Bush Administration and the rubber stamp Republicans who controlled Congress (for a 12 year period), the majority of governorships, and increasingly the judicial branch up to and including the Supreme Court. Our duty and first priority is to hold this regime accountable for the real and provable damage that they have caused to us and to others across the globe, and for using the tragedy of 9/11 as the primary fear-weapon to implement their corruption. This duty supersedes the secondary goal of chasing a final conclusive answer to the 9/11 Truth accusations, where those two aims are in pragmatic conflict. A final answer on the 9/11 Truth question can wait if necessary, but replacement of the current regime cannot.

The reader will note that I am not attempting to present and compare technical details of the two sides, nor engage in a technical debate. Many conspiracy theory proponents prefer to engage in such debates, which tend to overwhelm with detail, regardless of whether it is complete, accurate, or in context. The nature of this material does not lend itself to tit-for-tat debate between lay persons in an electronic forum. It may be great fun for those who enjoy polemics, but little or no enlightenment will result. It is far better to read and reflect upon the source materials without the distractions of an electronic forum, and if there is real confusion on one point or another, consult with a qualified and objective expert.

For those wishing to compare technical detail presented by 9/11 Truth supporters versus those who hold that movement to be wrong, here are some informative links. By presenting these links, I expressly convey that the expertise and quality of analyses lies with the analysts and not with me. I am not qualified to debate the technical detail, and such comments will be left unanswered by me. For those wishing to leave technical comments, I would ask that they make clear whether or not they possess credible expertise, such as a relevant graduate degree relating directly to the issue in question.

http://www.debunking911.com/

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2211

Lastly, I advise readers to ignore dismissive and ad hominem attacks from either side of this issue. This topic raises passions and tempers, creating much heat but little light. I believe healthy skepticism, combined with patience and an open mind, is the best tool for leading us to truth.

123 Comments

Filed under America - 9/11

Tags: gorn by any other name @ TPZoo