Distribution via the Unanswered Questions
Wire http://www.unansweredquestions.org/
. The 9/11 Conspiracy: A SkepticÂ’s ViewBy Ernest Partridge, Co-EditorThe Crisis PapersApril 25,
2006 No testimony is
sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of
such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than
the fact which it endeavors to establish…- David
Hume, On MiraclesThis essay is certain
to make many readers very angry with me. But ya gotta do
what ya gotta do.Last month I was a guest on a
progressive radio talk show. About half-way through the
hour-long program, the conversation was going well, until I
expressed some doubts about the “controlled demolition”
hypotheses of the collapse of the World Trade Center. That
comment sealed the fate of the remainder of the hour, as it
prompted an unvarying succession of angry rebuttals and a
deluge of alleged “facts” supporting the view that the WTC
towers were brought down by pre-set demolition charges, and
that the Pentagon was not struck by a Boeing 747. And so I
felt obliged to take a closer look at the theories and
evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon.After many hours watching videos
this weekend of long presentations by David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones and James Fetzer, several other videos both
affirming and rejecting “the official version” (OV),
and reading numerous articles, it appears to me that the OV
of the destruction of the World Trade Center is not
credible. Too many anomalies are not explained.
A closer
look at the conspiracy theories (CTs) indicates that these
too can not be true. Too many improbable assumptions. Thus
one must conclude that the 9/11 attack on the WTC never took
place. No wait, thatÂ’s absurd. Of course it took
place! So what we are left with is an abundance of contrary
claims, unconfirmable “evidence” leading to utter confusion
and no firm conclusions — none, that is, regarding the
World Trade Center attack. The Pentagon attack, however,
should present little doubt: American Airlines Flight 77
struck the building. The Evidence Problem:All
accounts of the attacks, whether the official version or any
of the numerous conspiracy theories, rest upon weak evidence
– “weak,” that is, to all those who did not examine the
evidence at the scene, or did not have access to evidence
with a secure “chain of custody.” For all others, including
myself and presumably all who read this, the evidence is
2nd, 3rd and Nth-hand hearsay. The best evidence available
to us, when relevant, are photographic and video images, and
even these are subject to various interpretations.Until
recently, the public could rely on published evidence from
government scientists and government-supported scientific
research, as well as reputable media. But no more. We now
know that the Bush Administration alters or withholds
scientific reports to conform to policy, dogma and
pre-conceptions. The Bushites also lie outright in defense
of their policies. As for the media, even that most reliable
and respected “newspaper of record,” The New York Times, has
become a font of misinformation, including the Clinton
Whitewater non-scandal, false and misleading reports of the
Florida 2000 vote count, and Judith MillerÂ’s notorious
reports of SaddamÂ’s alleged WMDs. Even so, the critical
reader should be capable of identifying and dismissing
bizarre assertions, such as Morgan ReynoldÂ’s claim that no aircraft
struck the twin towers on 9/11 – this in spite of thousands
of eye-witnesses and a vast number of photo and video
images.The same critical reader can identify and set
aside pronouncements that are devoid of supporting evidence,
such as this narrative by James Fetzer of the fate of American
Airlines Flight 77 which, if it didnÂ’t hit the Pentagon, as
Fetzer contends, must be somehow accounted for:Flight 77
went off the radar screen in the vicinity of the
Kentucky/Ohio border. This whole dotted path [on a map
displayed by Fetzer] is a hypothetical or an imaginary path
that the plane may have taken, but it was not recorded on
radar. And my belief is in fact the plane actually went down
in the Kentucky Ohio vicinity… Then a plane, probably a n
A-13 Sky Warrior was substituted here very close to
Washington DCFetzer gives us no citation of the alleged
disappearance from the radar screen. (I have heard nothing
about this “radar disappearance.” Have you?) Then it gets
much worse: “hypothetical or imaginary path,” “may have
taken,” “my belief.” Not a shred of evidence is offered in
support of this fantasy. The World Trade
CenterMuch of the “evidence” presented by the WTC
conspiracy theorists is demonstrably false, fallacious or
irrelevant. For example:“The temperatures were
not hot enough to melt steel.” True but irrelevant. This is
a persistent criticism by the CT. However, the OV does not
claim that the steel melted at the impact points (melting
temperature, 2700°F), only that it was weakened. The
temperature sufficient to weaken steel by fifty-percent
(1170°F) was well within the range of the burning jet fuel
and office supplies.“The debris was quickly
collected without inspection and shipped off to Asia for
recycling.” False. It was relocated to a collection site at
Staten Island, where it was examined by forensic engineers,
and where personal effects were identified. (Here, here, and here are three of the 54,000 Google hits
from a search for “World Trade Center” and “Staten Island”
and “Debris”)“No steel frame building has ever
collapsed because of a fire.” Another “fact” repeatedly
asserted by CT-s. Irrelevant, even if true. The WTC
towers were brought down by a combination of fire and
structural damage caused by the impact from the planes. (The
collapse of WTC Building #7 was not caused by either fire or
impact from planes — a problem for the CV which we will
discuss later).Now look very carefully at these
images of the collapse of the WTC towers, here (north tower, 35:20. 36:40), here (south tower, 5:37), and here. (The numbers in parenthesis
indicate the time locations in the videos). Notice that the
collapse begins at the points of impact. Below the points of
impact, the towers remain in place as the disintegration
proceeds from the top down.Next look at these video
images of controlled demolitions (131:40) and
also the collapse of WTC #7 (1:05). In all
these cases, the collapse begins at the base, where the
charges were set.Assume now what your eyes plainly tell
you: that (a) the collapse of each tower begins at the point
of impact, and (b) that the collapse proceeds from that
point downward. Next, try to weave these assumptions into
the standard CT hypothesis that the towers were brought down
by pre-located explosive charges. What results is this
highly improbable scenario:Charges had to be set
beforehand at the points of impact, the 94th to the 98th
floors of the north tower, and the 78th to the 84th floors
of the south tower. Both aircraft, in stunning feats of
piloting skill, succeeded in striking precisely at those
pre-arranged locations. However, all charges placed below
those points of impact were either duds or were insufficient
to precipitate collapses. The towers stood firm as the
demolition moved downward from the impact points.In
rebuttal, one might point out that the towers were supported by both the outer walls and an
inner core. Might not the charges at the base have
caused the collapse of the inner core, while the outer walls
remained intact? This would account for the downward
vertical plunge of the north tower.Nice try, but it wonÂ’t
wash. If the core collapsed within, the accumulating debris
from above would have demolished the outer walls below. This
did not happen.However, the official version is not
without problems, and the conspiracy theory is not yet out
of the contest. There remain some troubling anomalies for
the OV:Foremost among these is the collapse of WTC
Building No. 7. Five hours after the towers came down, this
forty story structure collapsed. And this time, as you can
see here (1:05), the collapse followed the
exact pattern of a controlled demolition: beginning at the
base and falling uniformly on its own “footprint.” The best
that the OV can offer as explanation is that the foundation
was weakened by fire, by seismic shock of the collapsing
towers, and by the overload of debris from the towers. It is
not a compelling explanation, to say the least. Perhaps this
explains why an account of the collapse of WTC #7 is missing
from the 9/11 Commission report.Prof. Steven Jones, to my
mind the most credible of the 911 critics, claims that
melted and congealed steel was found in the rubble, and that
it originated at the base of the standing buildings. The
only plausible cause of melting with these properties, Jones
claims, would be a high temperature explosive such as
thermite. Jones is well-qualified to make this assessment.
He is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, with a specialty in metal-catalyzed
fusion.And this is just the beginning of a long list
of anomalies that undercut the official version. Among
them: There were numerous reports of explosions below
the impact points at the time the towers were hit. Others
report that there were explosions before the planes hit.
Tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers were destroyed. When news of the
attack reached the Florida school where Bush was visiting,
the Secret Service failed to remove the president from that
previously publicized location. There was a flood of “put options” (anticipations
of loss) on American Airlines and United Airlines stock,
within the week before 9/11. The website, 911research.wtc7.net lists numerous
additional anomalies, no doubt, many of these are bogus, but
there are others that are troubling. The
governments, New York City and State, and the Feds still
have a lot of splaininÂ’ to do. The Attack on the
Pentagon.Unlike the WTC attacks, the Pentagon is
rather simple and cut-and-dried. The official version is correct: The
west side of the building was struck by American Airlines
Flight 77, a Boeing 757. The evidence is clear, unequivocal
and overwhelming. The alternative conspiracy theories
(impact by a fighter plane or cruise missile) are plainly
false, and at times simply pathetic. This conclusion is
compelling when we apply “the David Hume test” to the
conspiracy theory: namely, the improbability of CT being
true, despite the evidence for OV. Specifically, for CT to
be true, we must also assume that: Hundreds of
eyewitnesses on the George Washington
Parkway at morning rush-hour were either (a) victims of
mass-hallucination, or (b) taken aside and threatened or
bribed to testify falsely that they saw a commercial
aircraft. Immediately after the impact,
squads of conspirators rushed to the scene (including the inside of the burning Pentagon) to
plant body parts, personal effects, and bogus aircraft parts
(some, like the engines and landing gear weighing several
hundred pounds). Others dumped aviation fuel, to “falsely”
suggest involvement of an airplane.
Alternatively, eyewitness testimony of those claiming to
find these parts were also coerced, and published
photographic evidence faked. All press reports were also
concocted to give credence to the official
version. Finally, some explanation must be
presented as to the fate of Flight 77 and its passengers,
which somehow disappeared without any further trace at the
precise time the alleged military aircraft or cruise missile
approached and struck the Pentagon.Sorry, but
its just too much for me to swallow. What Does it all
Mean?How then are we to explain the Bush
Administration inaction before 9/11, and its willingness to
take full advantage of this “new Pearl Harbor?” I don’t
know, but that doesnÂ’t keep me from speculating. So hereÂ’s
my hunch – and it’s only a hunch which I am willing to
revise or abandon if and when more evidence appears. The
Busheviks were forewarned (“Bin Laden determined to strike
in the US”), but they expected attacks on the scale of the
USS Cole and the African embassies: perhaps a few dozen
casualties — “acceptable.”. They did not take
countermeasures because they saw a strategic advantage in
such a “mini-Pearl Harbor.” For such a purpose, the attack
on The Pentagon would suffice. They did not expect the
destruction of the World Trade Center. However, after 9/11
the die was cast, and so they eagerly launched their “the
war on terror, along with the policy outrages that were to
follow: the USA PATRIOT ACT, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo. The Iraq
War, we now know from Richard Clarke and the Downing Street
memos, was on the drawing boards long before 9/11, awaiting
just such an event to set it in motion. All that is
little more than a guess. But we can arrive at some more
substantial conclusions from our unresolved examination of
the 9/11 attacks.First of all, it is clear that the 9/11
Commission is a travesty. Too many phenomena are
unexplained. The evidence must be revisited and validated,
and the criticsÂ’ anomalies explained. And this must be done
fearlessly and independently of any political biases or
agendas.Second, the critics of the official version
should, as much as possible, get their facts straight,
whereupon they must then cease presenting falsehoods as
evidence; e.g., that the debris was shipped immediately,
uninspected, to Asia; that the the OV assumes and claims
that steel melted; that no physical evidence of the plane
was found at the Pentagon, etc.Third: there is no shame
in suspending belief — i.e., in being skeptical.
Conversely, it is shameful to jump to a conclusion and a
conviction on insufficient and conflicting evidence.
Acceptance of the official version, or conversely of the
conspiracy theory, are not our only alternatives. Both views
are vulnerable and leave many crucial questions unanswered.
Far better that we admit to ourselves and tell the world
that we simply do not know. Suspension of belief is not a
conspicuously American trait. But it is a stock-in-trade of
honest scholars and scientists. And it is spur to further
investigation, which is most assuredly called for in this
case.Finally, partisan passions should not get in the way
of a rational assessment of the evidence. Personally, my web
publications testify that I yield to no one in my contempt
for Bush and his crime syndicate. I would like as much as
anyone to see these crimes pinned on Bush, Inc. But the
evidence (however weak) is what it is.What happened on
9/11? Who is responsible? The questions remain open even as
they remain urgent. The American people deserve answers, and
more immediately, competent and sustained investigation
leading to these answers.*************
Copyright 2006 by Ernest PartridgeDr. Ernest Partridge is
a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of
Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught
Philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah,
Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, “The
Online Gadfly” ( www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the
progressive website, “The Crisis Papers” (
www.crisispapers.org). His book in progress, “Conscience
of a Progressive,” can be seen at www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm
. Send comments to: crisispapers@hotmail.com
.******************** STANDARD
DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not
necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above
article. We present this in the interests of research -for
the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope
that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us
further, in helping to build bridges between our various
investigative communities, towards a greater, common
understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie
before us.
