Gold9472
08-19-2007, 07:18 PM
The debate about what really happened on Sept. 11
http://www.telegram.com/article/20070819/COLUMN21/708190521/1020
(Gold9472: As I read this, I realized that the person writing it must have spent at least SOME time looking into 9/11. I also realized that the very fact that he calls for a “full, thorough and nonpartisan investigation of the tragedy and the months preceding” shows that someone who probably thought we were nothing but “nuts”, after spending some time looking into 9/11, learned that we are NOT “nuts”, and instead are people asking legitimate questions. Something the “debunkers” would NEVER admit.)
Albert B. Southwick
Commentary
National catastrophes tend to spawn conspiracy activists. Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, a seemingly straightforward affair, was chewed over for years by conspiracy buffs who fingered various parties. One theory claimed that the Jesuits did it.
Another found Secretary of War Edwin Stanton guilty of the dastardly deed.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, produced a spate of conspiracy speculations, including the idea that President Franklin D. Roosevelt deliberately allowed it to happen in order to get the United States into the war.
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy resulted in a bumper crop of conspiracy theories, some of which are still bouncing around among the gullible.
And now we have a new wave of conspiracyitis — about Sept. 11, 2001. It recently got a boost from Rosie O’Donnell, but folks far more expert and believable than Rosie claim that the country has not been told the truth about the tragedy.
What really happened in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, and why? The official explanation, as stated in the 2004 commission report, is widely criticized as a pack of evasions, if not outright lies. Even its chairman and vice chairman, Gov. Thomas H. Kean and former U. S. Rep. Lee Hamilton say it is flawed and untrustworthy because some quarters of the government did not cooperate with the investigation and may actually have put up roadblocks to certain lines of inquiry.
More than 100 prominent citizens — former senators, governors, generals, colonels, intelligence specialists, pilots, engineers, law enforcement veterans — claim that there is something wrong with the official explanation of what happened on Sept. 11.
So this is different from those earlier conspiracy fantasies spun out by obsessed types impervious to facts. A glance at two Web sites, Pilots for 9 /11 Truth and Scholars for 9 /11 Truth and Justice shows a remarkable consensus that the country has been lied to, and that an independent investigation is in order.
If this were just some rabid Bush hater sounding off, it could perhaps be dismissed. But when versions of that belief are shared by former Sen. Max Cleland, Gen. Wesley Clark, Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, Col. George Nelson, Lt. Col. Shelton Langford, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Sen. Bob Graham, Sen. Mark Dayton, Gov. Jesse Ventura, Rep. Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts and 100 more other distinguished citizens with all sorts of expertise, it becomes something to be taken seriously.
So what are we to make of all this?
We all saw the planes crashing into the twin towers. We read the stories about the planes taking off from different airports and, with full loads of fuel, heading for New York and Washington.
We watched the grieving relatives on television. We have read endlessly about the plotters and al-Qaida. Are we to believe that this was all some sort of huge hoax devised by people in the Bush administration? It seems most unlikely to most. The Internet is filled with rebuttals to all the conspiracy claims.
I think it is helpful to divide the alleged conspiracy charges into their various components. Some, I believe, are more plausible than others.
1. There is no way that two airplanes could demolish two great skyscrapers in a matter of minutes. There had to be explosives installed beforehand.
Although some engineers seem to believe this, I go along with the conclusions of the National Institute of Standards and Technology that “the impact of the planes severed and damaged the support columns, dislodged fireproofing coating the steel floor trusses and widely dispersed jet fuel … ignited multi-floor fires.”
2. Experienced pilots would never have allowed two smallish-sized men armed with 1-inch box cutters to take over the cockpit.
Unlikely as it may seem, I believe that’s what happened.
3. Building 7, a nearby skyscraper not hit by any plane, collapsed several hours later in what was obviously a controlled demolition.
Building 7 was hit by a tremendous blast of heat from the burning towers that warped a huge section of its side, but it did not crumble for several hours. When it did, it collapsed vertically, much like a controlled demolition.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology made a preliminary finding that the building collapsed after “an initial local failure occurred below Floor 13 due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column . . .”
The final report has not yet been published, but it seems unlikely that any evidence for a controlled demolition will be found.
4. The damage to the Pentagon could not have been done by a large plane. There is no debris scattered around and the hole made through the wall was only about 20 feet in diameter, far too small for an airliner. The Pentagon was hit by a missile.
This version of events has been challenged by other observers, engineers and military people who were at the Pentagon on Sept. 11 and who actually felt the impact and observed the aftermath. They say there was scattered debris after the crash.
5. The 9/11 Commission Report is full of errors and omissions that show a massive cover-up. It does not even mention that Mohammed Atta, the chief conspirator, was well-known to U. S. authorities long before Sept. 11.
Although the idea of a “massive cover-up” may seem far-fetched, there are indications that somebody did not want a full disclosure of information about the planning or lack of planning before Sept. 11. Whether this was about blunders and cover-ups or something more sinister is at least open to question.
Most of the conspiracy theories on Sept. 11 are beyond belief. But I concede that we need a full, thorough and nonpartisan investigation of the tragedy and the months preceding. Otherwise, the conspiracy fantasies will go on forever. They may, anyway.
Albert B. Southwick’s column appears regularly in the Sunday Telegram.
http://www.telegram.com/article/20070819/COLUMN21/708190521/1020
(Gold9472: As I read this, I realized that the person writing it must have spent at least SOME time looking into 9/11. I also realized that the very fact that he calls for a “full, thorough and nonpartisan investigation of the tragedy and the months preceding” shows that someone who probably thought we were nothing but “nuts”, after spending some time looking into 9/11, learned that we are NOT “nuts”, and instead are people asking legitimate questions. Something the “debunkers” would NEVER admit.)
Albert B. Southwick
Commentary
National catastrophes tend to spawn conspiracy activists. Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, a seemingly straightforward affair, was chewed over for years by conspiracy buffs who fingered various parties. One theory claimed that the Jesuits did it.
Another found Secretary of War Edwin Stanton guilty of the dastardly deed.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, produced a spate of conspiracy speculations, including the idea that President Franklin D. Roosevelt deliberately allowed it to happen in order to get the United States into the war.
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy resulted in a bumper crop of conspiracy theories, some of which are still bouncing around among the gullible.
And now we have a new wave of conspiracyitis — about Sept. 11, 2001. It recently got a boost from Rosie O’Donnell, but folks far more expert and believable than Rosie claim that the country has not been told the truth about the tragedy.
What really happened in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, and why? The official explanation, as stated in the 2004 commission report, is widely criticized as a pack of evasions, if not outright lies. Even its chairman and vice chairman, Gov. Thomas H. Kean and former U. S. Rep. Lee Hamilton say it is flawed and untrustworthy because some quarters of the government did not cooperate with the investigation and may actually have put up roadblocks to certain lines of inquiry.
More than 100 prominent citizens — former senators, governors, generals, colonels, intelligence specialists, pilots, engineers, law enforcement veterans — claim that there is something wrong with the official explanation of what happened on Sept. 11.
So this is different from those earlier conspiracy fantasies spun out by obsessed types impervious to facts. A glance at two Web sites, Pilots for 9 /11 Truth and Scholars for 9 /11 Truth and Justice shows a remarkable consensus that the country has been lied to, and that an independent investigation is in order.
If this were just some rabid Bush hater sounding off, it could perhaps be dismissed. But when versions of that belief are shared by former Sen. Max Cleland, Gen. Wesley Clark, Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, Col. George Nelson, Lt. Col. Shelton Langford, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Sen. Bob Graham, Sen. Mark Dayton, Gov. Jesse Ventura, Rep. Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts and 100 more other distinguished citizens with all sorts of expertise, it becomes something to be taken seriously.
So what are we to make of all this?
We all saw the planes crashing into the twin towers. We read the stories about the planes taking off from different airports and, with full loads of fuel, heading for New York and Washington.
We watched the grieving relatives on television. We have read endlessly about the plotters and al-Qaida. Are we to believe that this was all some sort of huge hoax devised by people in the Bush administration? It seems most unlikely to most. The Internet is filled with rebuttals to all the conspiracy claims.
I think it is helpful to divide the alleged conspiracy charges into their various components. Some, I believe, are more plausible than others.
1. There is no way that two airplanes could demolish two great skyscrapers in a matter of minutes. There had to be explosives installed beforehand.
Although some engineers seem to believe this, I go along with the conclusions of the National Institute of Standards and Technology that “the impact of the planes severed and damaged the support columns, dislodged fireproofing coating the steel floor trusses and widely dispersed jet fuel … ignited multi-floor fires.”
2. Experienced pilots would never have allowed two smallish-sized men armed with 1-inch box cutters to take over the cockpit.
Unlikely as it may seem, I believe that’s what happened.
3. Building 7, a nearby skyscraper not hit by any plane, collapsed several hours later in what was obviously a controlled demolition.
Building 7 was hit by a tremendous blast of heat from the burning towers that warped a huge section of its side, but it did not crumble for several hours. When it did, it collapsed vertically, much like a controlled demolition.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology made a preliminary finding that the building collapsed after “an initial local failure occurred below Floor 13 due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column . . .”
The final report has not yet been published, but it seems unlikely that any evidence for a controlled demolition will be found.
4. The damage to the Pentagon could not have been done by a large plane. There is no debris scattered around and the hole made through the wall was only about 20 feet in diameter, far too small for an airliner. The Pentagon was hit by a missile.
This version of events has been challenged by other observers, engineers and military people who were at the Pentagon on Sept. 11 and who actually felt the impact and observed the aftermath. They say there was scattered debris after the crash.
5. The 9/11 Commission Report is full of errors and omissions that show a massive cover-up. It does not even mention that Mohammed Atta, the chief conspirator, was well-known to U. S. authorities long before Sept. 11.
Although the idea of a “massive cover-up” may seem far-fetched, there are indications that somebody did not want a full disclosure of information about the planning or lack of planning before Sept. 11. Whether this was about blunders and cover-ups or something more sinister is at least open to question.
Most of the conspiracy theories on Sept. 11 are beyond belief. But I concede that we need a full, thorough and nonpartisan investigation of the tragedy and the months preceding. Otherwise, the conspiracy fantasies will go on forever. They may, anyway.
Albert B. Southwick’s column appears regularly in the Sunday Telegram.