Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Car Wreck

The anniversary of 9/11 and the associated coverage of the conspiracy theories, combined with the suspension of Steven Jones and my brother-in-law's comments on Monday's blog have all conspired to draw me back into the world of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thus the title (they're like car wrecks, I can't look away).

I did watch the debate on Democracy Now (linked to in Monday's comments) between the two guys that made Loose Change and the two guys from Popular Mechanics who wrote the Popular Mechanics on 9/11: Debunking The Myths article. And I have to agree that the "Loose Change" guys did not come off well at all. There are of course various levels of the conspiracy and these two are right at the top (or bottom I guess). Their contention was that planes did not crash into Pennsylvania or the pentagon. Let's look at this for a moment...

The motive generally given for 9/11 by the conspiracy theorists is that it was designed to be another Pearl Harbor. An violent event so shocking that it would give Bush and the affiliated Evil Ones™ carte blanche to pursue their militaristic adventures, in particular the invasion of Iraq. So you've already flown a plane into each towers of the WTC. At this point the contention is, "Well that wasn't nearly as dramatic as I expected, lets blow a hole in the ground in Shanksville and launch a missile at the side of the Pentagon. Then we'll find two planes and uh... land them somewhere else... blame the hole in the ground and at the Pentagon on them... and kill everyone on board!" "Brilliant!"

Seriously what possible motivation could, say, Dark Lord of the Sith himself, Dick Cheney have to go to all the trouble of mimicking two additional plane impacts and causing two actual planes to disappear? There are some intelligent conspiracy buffs out there who claim that obviously planes hit the Pentagon and Shanksville in Pennsylvania, but the government has "baited the trap" tossing little bits of doubt in there about the two "Pen"'s so that they can easily pounce, and as I did point out how idiotic you would have to be, and thus, by extension, paint the entire movement as idiotic. Who know's they maybe on to something.

Trying is the first step towards failure

2 Comments:

Anonymous ed said...

That, and the recent videos from Al Qaeda (shown on Al Jazeera), *showing* a few of the hijackers with Osama bin Laden (complete with subtitles calling them the attackers on Manhattan), would mean, I guess, that Al Qaeda decided to just "play along" to give them a handy excuse for having infidels invade their countries so that... why again?

3:53 PM  
Anonymous Brad said...

I was not familiar with "Loose Change" until I looked-up Screw Loose Change after reading Mary Katharine Ham's Townhall.com article "Beware the Truthers. Don't Ignore Them." I have only watched half of the film (with the original plus the rebuttal mixed in the thing is almost 3 hours), but thus far it has been quite thorough in debunking "Loose Change 2nd Edition." I definitely recommend Mary's article and tentatively recommend the movie (pending complete viewing.)

4:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home