2008-11-23 00:13:00
[Compiler's Note: JJ Dewey originally posted this article on 2008-11-22, and then reposted a corrected version on 2008-11-23. What follows below is that corrected version.]
My Friends,
I reread this article and it had way too many typos and flaws so I rewrote and corrected it. This one should read better.
Susan believes Stephen Jones's 13 points need to be analyzed and disproved. The point is they have been analyzed and contrary views presented but that has certainly not been the end of the matter. The core problem behind the 911 conspiracy is that we have an event of major proportions that it has never happened before. When such an event occurs there are always anomalies that could be interpreted to mean that a conspiracy is somehow involved.
A prime example is the moon landings. All kinds of conspiracy theories have sprung up around this with all kinds of data showing that the moon landing was impossible.
But the problem with this conspiracy theory is that we did actually go there, and it is proven that we went there so anything that makes it sound like we did not go there has to have some flaw in it. If someone comes up with 13 points or 100 points or reasons why we did not go to the moon then obviously there's some false reasoning within those points.
In reality they have many more than 13 reasons why we did not go to the moon.
But let's just take one piece of evidence showing that we did go to the moon.
In 1969 Apollo 12 touched down right next to the spacecraft named Surveyor 3 which had already been on the moon for 2 1/2 years. The astronauts retrieved the camera and several other items, then physically brought them back to the earth. These were examined by scientists and there was no question that the camera, which had been on the moon for 2 1/2 years, was the real thing. It had been bombarded by micrometeorites and cosmic rays in the right proportion to match its stay there.
Now to actually go to the moon, land next to a probe that we know is there, physically bring back the ingredients and have them proven to be the ingredients, overshadows any of the dozens of points that any conspiracy theorist might want to present. None of the points are even close to the evidence of going to the moon and physically bringing back a known object from there.
And this is just one of many of the irrefutable proofs that we went there.
Now fast-forward to the 911 disaster. Just like the retrieval of a physical object from the moon is such a powerful evidence that overshadows anything else, even so there are quite a number of points with the 911 disaster that happened pretty much as presented that overshadows any evidence to the contrary. Again it's like the bumblebee. Engineers can look at the bumblebee and conclude by computer models that it cannot fly, but it does fly. Thus the computer models have to be wrong.
In 1990, computer models predicted how global warming would occur and they were so wrong that some have been revised up to 100% from the original projections. And now there has not been global warming since 1998 and we still hear tremendous misinformation about it.
Again let me list several reasons why the standard conspiracy models do not make sense about 911:
Most conspiracy theorists believe the international bankers are behind all these things, yet the financial center of the whole world is what was attacked. It doesn't make any sense to associate bankers with this one. If the government was behind it then what did gain? Nothing that I can see.
I realize that some say 911 was an excuse to build up the military, or to get oil in Iraq, or build some pipeline in Afghanistan but any of these things could have been accomplished more efficiently using other methods.
Conclusion:
There's just no motive here that makes any sense for conspiracy theory, but there is a sensible motive for the terrorists.
To pull off a 911 conspiracy would require thousands of people. There is a saying that if three more people know about a thing that thing will only be a secret for a short period of time. In a massive 911 type conspiracy there had to be hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, involved. It's about as close to a sure thing as one can imagine that someone with a guilty conscience would be telling their story. Just to plant the explosives in the three buildings involved would have required hundreds of workers almost destroying the buildings before they were exploded. Surely one of these workers would come forward and tell their story about how they did their dastardly deed.
"But," one says, "maybe they killed all those workers?" But who killed those workers? Surely someone who participated in the killing would have a guilty conscience and appear on "60 Minutes" telling their story. Look at Abu Ghraib [USA military prison scandal in Iraq]. Those participating did not want this leaked out to the public yet there was someone there with a digital camera and took pictures and released them. In this, and many other instances of embarrassing details about the Iraq war, those details that were not desired to be released, were released.
Conclusion:
The fact that a large number of people had to be involved in the 911 conspiracy and no one is talking makes it statistically impossible for the standard conspiracy theory to be true.
The unexpected happens again and again when entirely new events occur. For instance, when we went to the Saturn moon of Titan and actually lit on the surface we discovered many of the computer models were wrong. Other computer models predicted that man could not go in space beyond the Van Allen radiation belts. But the fact that we did actually go beyond them and survived proves that the computer models were wrong. Some scientists predicted that the first atomic bomb would create an endless chain reaction and destroy the world. Now obviously the world is not destroyed so the scientists were wrong, thank goodness.
Now if I were a conspirator and wanted to accomplish something similar to the effect of the 911 disaster I certainly wouldn't plan something so complicated where statistically something major would go wrong and I would be found out. Demolition experts had never demolished a building more than 20 stories in the history of man so why would I take the chance in destroying two buildings over 100 stories? That just does not make sense. A much simpler conspiracy would be to plant a small atomic bomb, destroy Hoover Dam or kill some cute puppies and blame it on terrorists. This approach would involve a much smaller number of people and have much less chance of some participant spilling the beans.
Consider this: It is a proven fact that four planes did take off with hundreds of passengers. According to conspiracy theory these planes would have had to been snatched out of midair and neither the planes nor the passengers were ever seen again. For the conspiracy to work the planes had to have been destroyed and the passengers killed. Surely at least one person who participated in such a gruesome event would've taken a digital picture or appeared on "60 Minutes" to ease his conscience. No such person has come forth.
Then these planes would have had to been substituted with other vehicles believable enough to have been the real thing. Yet at the Pentagon there were dozens of witnesses who identified the actual plane and some were close enough to have actually seen through the windows of the plane to the passengers inside. I heard one such witness call "Coast-to-Coast" [radio program] and testify that he saw a plane not a missile and was close enough to see people through the windows.
In addition, we have Osama bin Laden on tape acknowledging that he was behind the 911 conspiracy. So there was a conspiracy but it was not our government that was behind it, but Osama bin Laden and his group actually admits to it on tape.
The interesting thing about the real conspiracy was that it was a simple feasible plan. Hijack as many airplanes as possible and create maximum damage.
I have asked people into the conspiracy theory dozens of times to explain how hundreds of demolition experts could have entered the twin towers unseen with blow torches in hand cutting out sheet rock, cutting V's and steel beams, planting explosives, stringing wire in thousands of locations without being detected. No one I've ever asked this to have even attempted to answer. Why? Because the possibility of this happening is so minuscule that it completely negates the possibility of the orthodox version of the conspiracy.
Conclusion:
In a major event that has never happened before, anomalies instead of evidence proving a conspiracy are to be expected, and strange unexpected data and apparent inconsistencies will always occur.
This insures we will always have conspiracy theories. A handful may turn out to be true, but most are fueled by an overactive imagination.
Copyright © 2008 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved