911 Conspiracy

I found myself exchanging messages about conspiracy theories with a gentleman, using the term very loosely, considering his propensity for calling me names and making accusations against me. Apparently, I am ‘close minded’ and ‘not willing to question anything’, among other things because I consider 911 conspiracy theories to be utter nonsense.

Let’s take a good hard look at conspiracy theories in general and 911 specifically.

Start with the fact that Kennedy could not keep secret his affairs with a number of women, or that he had the CIA and the Mafia both try to assassinate Fidel Castro. Johnson could not keep secret the fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was bogus, nor My Lai or similar massacres of Vietnamese by US soldiers, nor the Pentagon Papers. Nixon could not cover up Watergate, nor the various tapes of conversations in the White House. Reagan could not hide Iran-Contra, nor the sale of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. Clinton could not hide his Oval Office sexual escapades. Bush could not hide the falsified evidence of WMDs in Iraq, nor could he hide Abu Ghraib. The US could not stop Wikileaks from publishing embarrassing Iraq and Afghanistan docs, nor stop Snowden from releasing tons of material on NSA spying.

Why could these things not be hidden or covered up? Because there are people with a conscience who feel compelled to disclose what they feel is illegal or immoral activity.

Yet we are supposed to believe that in spite of the scope of action around 911, that no one has stepped forward with solid evidence of wrong-doing? All we have is rumor-mongers and people who say ‘but there are unanswered questions’. So why don’t we look at some of what they propound?

First, supposedly the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, not by the airplane crashes. This brings up some questions. First, how could the amount of explosives need to bring down those buildings be brought in and placed in the buildings without some of the thousands of workers in those buildings being aware of it? You aren’t going to bring those buildings down with something small and easily hidden. A suitcase explosive would not bring down any of the WTC buildings. The 911 conspiracy proponents claim controlled demolition, but can’t explain nor provide evidence of that quantity of explosives being brought in.

Second, watch the video footage of the collapse of either of the two major WTC buildings, and watch it in slow motion – even a frame at a time. You can see the collapse starting in the section of each building where the airplane hit. If it was controlled demolition, how is it that the collapse begins where the airplane hit? The collapse should begin where the explosives are, which is where the damage causing the collapse is. So we are forced to believe either that explosives in another part of the building triggered the collapse of the buildings at the point where the airplanes hit, or that the explosives were in the part of the buildings where the airplanes hit. If the latter, then we are forced to believe that somehow the airplanes hit the buildings exactly or almost exactly where the explosives were placed. The 911 conspiracy folks provide no hard evidence of why the buildings collapsed where they did.

Regarding the Pentagon attack, many 911 conspiracy buffs say that it was not an airplane but a missile that hit the building. This is despite evidence of airplane debris in and around the Pentagon, including Flight 77’s black boxes. It is also despite eyewitnesses on a nearby major highway who saw an airliner fly into the building. The 911 conspiracy people have no reasonable explanation for either of these.

The question arises about the people on board the airplanes that the 911 conspiracy proponents say were NOT involved in 911. Some of them say those people were murdered or relocated. Mind you, there is zero hard evidence of these murders or relocations. If they indeed relocated that many people, you would think that some of them would have contacted loved ones, and there would be hard evidence that the person was still alive. If the people were murdered, we are forced to believe that none of the people involved in the murders had enough of a conscience to speak out, and that the remains of those victims were hidden so carefully that no trace has been disclosed or found. How many people and how much time would it take to murder and dispose of that many people? Again, there is zero hard evidence of this, only claims.

So what do we have? In the 911 ‘Truth’ movement, we have a group of people who claim to only be interested in the ‘truth’ and who claim to be examining the evidence in a scientific manner. Yet they predetermine their conclusions, then only look for evidence which seems to corroborate those conclusions, and ignore any conflicting evidence, while leaving many unanswered questions regarding their own theories.

Am I interested in reading more true believer 911 conspiracy accounts? No, but that does not mean I am not interested in the truth. It means I have looked at enough of the evidence to come to the conclusion that the 911 conspiracy movement is trying to sell a lot of crap in the name of truth.

You are free to believe whatever you wish – even if it is total nonsense. I have no more interest or time for 911 or other conspiracy theories until someone has serious solid evidence, not more fears or speculation. And I have no interest in discussing conspiracy theories any further.