Friday, July 27, 2007

9/11 'Truth' Bites Back

A while ago I posted on the subject of 9/11 'Truth'. That is the true believers whose faith is that the terrorist attacks of the 11th of September were in fact a labyrinthine government conspiracy. I have had a number of comments on the post, the latest of which was:
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?
The poster was anonymous, but the style was pretty representative of those that buy into the ‘Truth’ industry, and believe me there is an industry with books and DVDs all at very reasonable prices. Leaving aside the poor spelling and grammar, the argument is a series of factoids gleaned from internet sources that have all been proven nonsense at one point or another. No-one has ever claimed that the aircraft involved in 9/11 vaporised, and plenty of debris has been found. There was no molten steel and the pictures that purport to show it have been shown to be artefacts. A few seconds thought is all that is required here as well as persistent molten steel would mean a persistent very high energy source in the ruins of the World Trade Centre, which of course wasn’t there. Building 7 wasn’t hit by an aircraft, but it was hit by wreckage from the collapsing towers and heavily damaged, as were a number of other buildings. The supposed ‘evidence’ for thermite was the presence of compounds with other more mundane explanations, and thermite is not used for demolishing buildings anyway. I could go on but why bother? These people do not apply logic or evidence; they start from a paranoid worldview and a hatred of the US government in general and George Bush in particular and work back from there. I am an engineer by training and an IT Architect by profession, but if I was a sociologist that subspecialised in the taxonomy of cults then I know which body of people would make up my next research project.


Anonymous said...

I don't usually read responses to 9/11 Truth, but I recognized your name (although American, I live, study and teach in Oxford, and keept up with British politics). This article reeks of all the dishonesty and cheating that has made 9/11 truth people so skeptical and paranoid. You have found a silly rendition of the 9/11 truth point of view. But why don't you address any of the books by scholars, scientists, etc. and leave the rest behind? Without addressing any of the facts in an objective manner, you insult the author and then say its not even worth talking about. No wonder people believe in a 9/11 conspiracy when so many -- far too many -- political leaders are so divisive, anti-intellectual and dishonest.

Jon Edelmann

Steve Horgan said...

There are plenty of serious analyses of the 9/11 'Truth' arguments, and they have been shown to be mistaken at best and outright lies at worst. The only thing this area of scholarship needs is serious research in to why people believe such palpable nonsense

Jonathan Edelmann said...

Yes, there are responses to 911 truth literature; yes we can go back and forth saying "this is stupid, that is stupid, this has been refuted, that has been refuted, etc." However, this is not productive. Your response is childish, which is (unfortunately) the best I have come to expect from so-called political leaders because of experiences like these.

Steve Horgan said...

There is no equivalence of argument in this case, and to suggest otherwise is absurd. There is no compelling evidence, or even credible circumstantial evidence, that 9/11 was perpetrated by anyone other than Al Qaeda. The only potentially productive line of enquiry is how the US failed to defend against the attacks, but that seems largely ignored. That political leaders, and thanks for the appellation, have largely formed the view that 9/11 'Truth' is garbage should restore your faith in politics.

Anonymous said...

Since you are so convinced, I'm curious which books (title and author) you've read?

(By the way, just restating your fanatical position, and re-establishing your unobjective approach is not convincing.)


Steve Horgan said...

I have read the 9/11 Commission Report, the various NIST papers and as a counterpoint the main papers published by the 'Truth' industry. I don't buy their books because I will not put money into the pockets of charlatans.

Anonymous said...

You have made up your mind without even reading the arguments!!! You are more dishonest and ignorant than I thought! You are a waste of time.

Steve Horgan said...

What arguments? Are you seriously saying that there is some nugget is some $9.99 paperback that implicates the Bush administration in the crime of the century that I, and most of the rest of the world, have missed? I am familiar with all of the major strands of 9/11 conspiracy theory. Out of curiousity where do you fit in the pantheon Mr. Anonymous? Are you in the hologram planes crowd or are rays from space your thing?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time with you. You are ignorant, close minded and have very little sincerity. Read the books by David Griffin, Webster Tarpley, the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and the articles by Steven Jones. Don't be so amazed you missed something. You are not a great thinker, just someone who is too afraid to think outside your little box.


Anonymous said...

The poor "9/11truth" souls are as pitiable, and/or despicable as the various "UFO truth", "the Holocaust never happend truth," and the "Moon Landings were a Hoax truth" cults.

They all self publish books and web pages which only they read and quote back and forth endlessly to each other; and when they find an open forum they go after the opportunity like a dog after a bone.

"9/11Truthers" discount the 10K pages of the NIST report, the 9/11 Commissions report, FEMA's report, and the endorsements of Firehouse Magazine, Popular Mechanics, and the American Society of Civil Engineers. And why do they discount those "official story" sources? Because they were all in on the "inside job" as well as the entire Bush Adminsitration!!!

Instead, we should trust a handful of theologians, political extremists, and defrocked scientists, a total of maybe 30 "usual suspects" and "fellow travelers" posing as experts, including holocaust deniers, particle beam from space "authorities", and one loon who claims controlled demolition by thermite of the Twin Towers and 7WTC, something no one in the controlled demolition field had even heard of before the forceably retired crank who spent years "researching" the pariah field of "cold fusion" dropped one fake line of bs for another.

This is the "research" this is the "information" that 9/11truther want everyone to focus on. Oh, and all those loaded with foregone conclusion laden "questions" such as: "Since it's impossible for 19 arabs with box cutters to have pulled off 9/11, and since only the great white father in the white house was capable of doing so, isn't it true a new investigation into 9/11 is warranted? Answer the question! The Amercan people want answers!"
and, "Since the report on the 7WTC collapse by NIST has not yet been completed, isn't it true that it had to be a controlled demolition?"

And so on and so forth, drivel ad infinitum.

It's nice to see some rational folks have caught on and now give us something else to read besides, half truths, cynically edited photos, videos, quotes, and of course, the ever present "9/11truth" outright fabrications.

Real questions, such as, why haven't you people done more than edit Youtube videos, and hawk your DVD's and books and t-shirts? It's been six years. And you're all still spouting the same repeatedly debunked nonsense. Which look more and more ridiculous every day we come more and more face to face with the gross incompetence of the Bush Administration.

Steve Horgan said...

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Anonymous said...

I used to make fun of truthers, too...and then, about six weeks ago, I became one.

In the six years since the towers came down I had given approximately zero credence or time to the 9/11 "truthers." I wasn't particularly hostile to them, I just didn't understand certain aspects of the alternative stories I'd heard, and didn't think it was worth investigating so I never did.

Then, two people I consider credible told me on the same day, independently of each other (they don't know each other) to Google "7 WTC," building 7 at the trade center.

That was the beginning of many long nights of internet research, and my conclusion is: yep, elements within the U.S. government sure did plan and execute 9/11. And they did a damn good job of it, too, although I think with Google, Youtube etc. they're not going to get away with it.

The idea that people in the U.S. Government would murder 3,000 of its own citizens seems too shocking to even consider at first, but it's less shocking once you familiarize yourself with the history of war profiteering, especially in Europe since the late 1700's and the U.S. since the late 1800s (Hearst and the Maine).

Once you understand war profiteeting's history, you see 9/11 for what it really was: the latest in a long line of human wars needly fought by poor people to enrich and further empower already rich people.

I consider it one of my generation's tasks to rid this country of its war profiteers. Future generations should not have to suffer mindless, needless wars like WWI and Iraq.

No one will buy the warmongers' product except government, government manipulated by the war special interests.

Steve Horgan said...

There is nothing on the internet that provides compelling evidence that the US government was responsible for 9/11. All that long hours of research on your computer would tell you is that there are some people who think that is was.

As to the war profiteers' thing, that is an example of a Cui Bono fallacy carried to an absurd degree. Enter that into Google and see what you get.