| Tuesday, March 28, 2006 |
11:16 - My wife does not understand logic, and therefore she does not understand me
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/serious_iowans_require_fisk/
|
(top)  |
Oh boy. Now Robert Fisk is stoking the flames of the 9/11 conspiracy theory. All it takes is enough people thinking enough people believe in it, and it'll become Truth.
A friend—a sane, rational friend—recently nervously drew my attention to this documentary which purports to expose the impossibilities of the "official story" of 9/11. Rather than address all of its points one by one, I find it's a lot more helpful to simply try to reason out what the logic of such a thing would entail.
One of the big theses of the documentary is that WTC 7—a small tower in the complex—fell down, and it had no reason to do so unless it was demolished by controlled charges.
To which I have to reply:
What would the purpose of demolishing it with explosives be? Most people, even the ones amenable to listening to this stuff, believe that at the very least it was the planes we all saw on countless independent videos that brought down WTC 1 and 2; but if that’s the case, why on earth would the CIA (or whoever) want to make so damned sure that WTC 7 fell down too? What would be the point? Would the Bush Administration’s nefarious strategy be easier to implement if WTC 7 came down too than if it were “merely” the two big towers? Or are they saying there was some super-top-secret thing in WTC 7 that the CIA wanted destroyed—and cooking up some amazingly convoluted and wide-reaching scheme to run terrorist-piloted planes into the Pentagon and White House and WTC was only a cover and a pretext under which they could demolish WTC 7 in the confusion? If what they really wanted was to get rid of something in that one building, couldn't there possibly have been some other, slightly more covert way than by executing 9/11?
Perhaps more to the point: If WTC 7 had no reason to fall down on its own just from stuff from the big towers falling on it, and the CIA were trying to make it look like it was just a terrorist attack—why the hell would they blow up WTC 7 themselves, drawing attention to something that shouldn’t have happened in such an attack? Wouldn’t it be a big ol’ giveaway? If they were trying to “frame” the terrorists in the planes, fictional or not, wouldn’t they have engineered the aftermath of the attack to look as much as possible like it would have looked if it were just planes crashing into the towers?
I mean, what’s the logic? Is there any?
The same goes for the reasoning behind Bush "lying" about WMDs in Iraq. The single biggest reason to believe he was acting on good faith is simply that the military didn't try to trump up any "evidence" of WMDs once they took Baghdad. They were genuinely stumped to find none there. If it were all part of a vast network of lies so overwhelming as to shame an Orwellian state, how could the administration miss such an obvious step as to retroactively justify the invasion by planting evidence? Why would they open themselves up to such criticism by allowing themselves to be proven wrong?
It’s the “Evil genius/incompetent fool” argument. The CIA/Bush must be more devious than Hitler and more bumbling than Ford, all at the same time.
Commenter "blubi" says:
The worst are the ones that come up with pointless observations to open up conspiracy theories without admitting to it, such as:
-Isn´t it strange that there were no recognizable airplane pieces at the Pentagon attack?
-I dunno, I haven´t seen much footage of airplane-hitting-buildings wrecks to make an opinion on how unusual that is, have you?
-No, but isn´t it strange?
-So what are you suggesting, that it wasn´t a plane? So what was it?
-I don´t know, I´m just saying it´s strange.
-Well if it wasn´t a plane and two planes collided with the WTC the same day, wouldn´t it be stranger that another plane vanished in the vicinity?
-I´m just saying it´s strange, not suggesting anything…
Even completely sane and rational friends of mine will allow themselves to be spooked by the “It don’t all add up” insinuations… I suspect it’s sort of a mental forbidden zone that a lot of people like to play in. It feels dangerous and dirty, and that makes it exciting. Logic can help counteract it, but only if the person wants it counteracted.
|
|
Brian Tiemann
