Saturday, June 16, 2007

9/11 'Truth'

Most readers of this will never have heard of the 9/11 'Truth' movement. These are the nutcases people who think that the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 in the US were some sort of inside job. There is a whole theology around this belief, with different factions who, as is traditional for such groups, hate each other. Some of them are deeply unpleasant, with overt anti-Semitism and all of them base their theories on bad science, bad logic, quotes out of context, unsourced rumour, political extremism and, well, lies. So, who cares? People believe in all sorts of nonsense. What makes this conspiracy theory different? It is simply this; the 'Truth' industry gives Al Qaeda and its spawn a pass. According to the conspiracists Islamic Terrorism either does not exist, or if it does it is much less culpable in terrorism than the US government. Their nuttiness becomes dangerous when it leaks into mainstream politics, where it often fuses with general anti-Americanism or a dislike of George Bush. By trying to move the focus from real terrorists to imagined conspiracy, idiots like Michael Meacher MP risk weakening the fight against people who would kill you and everyone you know if they thought it would advance their cause one centimetre.

If you want to revise your opinion of how stupid people can be then just enter '9/11 conspiracy' into Google and sit back.

10 comments:

terry said...

Take a look at the Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Government Officials, Professors, 9-11 Survivors and Family Members who have expressed significant criticism of the 9-11 Commission Report and/or allege government complicity in 9-11:
www.patriotsquestion911.com

-

Steve Horgan said...

And yet between them, with all of their supposed expertise and contacts, there is not one scintilla of hard evidence to suggest that Al Qaeda did not carry out attacks as has been determined. You could make an argument that the intelligence and military failures that allowed the attacks to be so devastating have note been properly investigated, and on the link you have posted that appears to be the main gripe, but to allege complicity you do need, you know, some actual evidence.

Hysterical quote on the first page by the way attributed to a retired military non-scientist, "the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics". Er, you can't actually violate either and if you could it would be evidence of magic, not of a US Government conspiracy.

timosman said...

anyone with an IQ above ten knows the 1400 feet steel WTC structures don't puliverise to dust without explosive energy, didn't you bother studying laws of intertia at skool?
911insidejob FACT

Steve Horgan said...

The energy released by the gravitational collapse of the WTC towers has been calculated as being of the order of 500 tons of TNT, half kiloton on the scale usually used for nuclear explosions. That is clearly sufficient to pulverise some of the concrete structure during the collapse. Moreover, controlled demolition actually doesn't work by explosively destroying structure, rather by destabilising it and letting gravity do the work. So, no, the disintegration of some of the concrete is no evidence of explosives whatsoever.

timosman said...

ALL the concrete was pulversised and the people were vapourised, steel beems were twisted and sliced, look at cars in a parking lot 400 meters away and their tyres are melted to the wheel trims and door handles evaporated, where did that heat come from? Certainly not from the structural failure baloney you hold dear.
The truth about 911 is common knowledge pal, the US were behind it not some bloke hiding in a cave in Afghanistan, 911 was to start a war which would last our lifetimes said Cheney. Have you watched September Clues yet?

Steve Horgan said...

All of the concrete was clearly not pulverised as is clearly shown in post-collapse pictures. Moreover the energy required to utterly destroy the two World Trade Center towers is enormous, much greater than that released by a gravitational collapse and much greater than that required for a controlled demolition. If temperatures were such that plastic was being vaporised 400 metres away then why were there not widespread fires out to and beyond that radius and why were people not burned out to and beyond that radius? As you probably know, Bin Laden didn't go into hiding in Afghanistan until after 9/11. He and his men had years of combat experience and organisation in irregular warfare. If you think that men like that couldn't overcome pre 9/11 US domestic airline security, then you obviously never flew inside the US before 9/11.

tim osman said...

Man, you're seriously backing a three legged horse with that lame excuse about the 'not' WTC being pulverised to fine dust in 12 seconds, did you study physics at school? Or have you bothered to watch September Clues yet? How about 911 Eyewitness, or 911 Mysteries, each provide copious hard evidence the attacks were an inside job, millions of people in this country know this is fact, it makes me larf you toff folk are spewing denial and lies, I'm sorry it doesn't wash anymore. I hope as much as you I see the real culprits hanging from lamp posts before I die.

Steve Horgan said...

There is no 'hard evidence'. None. No direct testimony, no documentary evidence, no physical evidence that unequivocally points to anyone being responsible other than Al Qaeda.

Anonymous said...

U should just remember one thing planes including titanium engines do not vapourise as we are told the ones did that hit the pentagon and the one which crashed near shanksville. And where sis the molten steel come from found under all the towers including building 7 which was not hit by a plane - do u enven know about building 7? Evidence or thurmite has also been found?

Steve Horgan said...

This was such a good one that it earned a blog post all of its very own.