| November 3, 2006 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Help George Bush by Brian Yanity, insurgent49 It seems that more and more progressives lately are buying into information presented in [the 9-11 conspiracy documentary] Loose Change. I would like to take a moment to inform these folks that credible rebuttals to the “facts” presented in the film have happened several times. For instance, here is a point-by-point refutation of these 9/11 conspiracy theories written by qualified scientific and engineers, not by film-school dropouts like those who made Loose Change: wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm. This writer, who holds degrees in physics and engineering, assures that the documentary’s “facts” will never be confirmed by peer-reviewed scientific and engineering journals honestly employing the scientific method. If you don’t believe me, then sit down and read the American Society of Civil Engineers report on the World Trade Center collapse. If you say that it is “too technical” to understand, the Wikipedia entry on Loose Change gives a good rundown of this particular video’s major shortcomings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29): What many of the critiques agree on is that Loose Change uses unreliable sources, oversimplified arguments and selective facts to maintain there are problems with the events of September 11th: Compares the collapse of the World Trade Center to other notable high rise fires, but does not clarify differences in building design and size, structural damage and compromised fireproofing. There is no exploration on the effect of fire on unprotected structural steel, which "loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F." Kevin Ryan the "expert" source from Underwriters Laboratories for steel certification [shown in the documentary] is actually a non-expert from a subsidiary for water testing. Underwriters Laboratories does not certify structural steel, and ASTM E119 certification involves intact fireproofing as conducted by Underwriters Laboratories for the NIST in 2004. Loose Change is especially skeptical with the lack of readily visible airplane debris and bodies in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crashes. It uses other airline disasters as evidence there should be larger debris found. However, those crashes were accidents where pilots were trying to save their aircraft; rather than deliberately crashing them. A video of what happens to a fighter jet and its heavy engine when crashed into a concrete barrier can provide a more accurate comparison. It also mentioned that the engines of the aircraft did the most damage to the wall. Substantial amounts of debris and body parts were recovered from both crash sites as the recovery operations began. While some of the calls from Flight 93 were made with Airfones, the documentary asserts that other calls made with cell phones could not have happened from cruising altitudes. However, in the recent book "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts" by Popular Mechanics editors (ISBN 158816635X), they point out Flight 93's altitude was lower and it was frequently over rural areas with powerful cell towers. Commercial airlines are testing new cell phone systems since it's a cost effective replacement to the unpopular Airfone being phased out. Reception is also improved (cell calls were dropped on Flight 93), works over the ocean, decreases avionics interference and flight crews can disable the phones. Also, the filmmakers of Loose Change are presently being sued for using footage shot by others, without permission and without copyright clearance: (www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/911_documentary_removed/). If these filmmakers are not careful enough to check copyrights, then what else do they not check? The ones who take the 9-11 conspiracy documentaries seriously usually say, after being presented with the above evidence, “just watch the movie.” Television, video and film are media forms that are inherently subject to manipulation. Why do dishonest politicians spend so much money on television ads? In his article “The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts: How They Let the Guilty Parties of 9/11 Slip Off the Hook” (www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09092006.html), Alexander Cockburn says: …the 9/11 nuts... proffer what they demurely call “disturbing questions”, though they disdain all answers but their own. They seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant. Like mad Inquisitors, they pounce on imagined clues in documents and photos, torturing the data –- as the old joke goes about economists -- till the data confess. Their treatment of eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence is whimsical. Apparent anomalies that seem to nourish their theories are brandished excitedly; testimony that undermines their theories – like witnesses of a large plane hitting the Pentagon -- is contemptuously brushed aside. He continues: The nuts disdain the real world because, like much of the left and liberal sectors, they have promoted Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons to an elevated status as the Arch Demons of American history, instead of being just one more team running the American empire, a team of more than usual stupidity and incompetence (characteristics I personally favor in imperial leaders.) The entire “9/11 was an inside job” thesis rests on many assumptions, one of them being that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East over the past few decades would have nothing at all to do with people wanting to attack the US. The 9/11 conspiracy theories give supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss all critics of this administration. Getting sucked into debating 9/11 conspiracy theories with scientifically and technically illiterate people is a serious distraction from the real crimes being committed by the U.S. government right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Brian Yanity is a graduate student at UAA, activist and freelance writer. He resides in an undisclosed location in Southcentral Alaska, and can be reached at byanity@insurgent49.com. |
-
Columnists -
-
also by this
writer -
Bioenergy Potential, From Brazil to Alaska An Introduction To Geothermal Energy Going Nuclear, part two Going Nuclear, part one A Sea of Potential A Letter to Mayor Begich On Renewable Energy In Anchorage Coal: Alaska's Other Black Gold, Part2 Coal: Alaska's Other Black Gold, Part 1 A Letter To BP From a Concerned Alaskan White Gold A Town Without Cars The Myth Of Outside Balto and Togo The Alaska Gas Pipeline: A Critical Analysis, Part Two The Alaska Gas Pipeline: A Critical Analysis, Part One Dispatches From New York City Alaska's Radical Labor History: 1905-1920 Anchorage In the Year 2030 All Aboard City Assembly Resists Change, Democracy Public Power: An Alaskan Tradition Alaska Oil and the Middle East A Fuel tax To Fund People Mover Interview With Rich Seifert Dear Mayor Begich ... Another Alaska Is Possible Avoiding Left Wing Cliches Remember The Knik Arm Ferry? A Million Trips A Day The Rest Of America Upside Down World Alaskan In Palestine North To The Future Ten Reasons To Stop The Knik Arm Bridge Missing The Bus Interview With Evon Peter |
|||||||
| Copyright
2005
Insurgent Media. All Rights
Reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
||||||||
