On Conspiracy Denial – Left and Right

Introduction

  • Most people are all too aware of the events of 9/11
  • Many people are ready to accept the government explanations
  • Many people are ready to demonize countries such as Iraq, and cast aspersions of Muslims in general
  • A few people question the government explanations
  • When they do, they seldom are accorded any respect – from the press, from the left, from the right
  • In this paper, I try to analyze why that is the case.

A Few Principal Arguments from the Left (Primarily the U.S. left)

1 – Our government would never do that

2 – Our government is incompetent and could not pull it off

3 – They could never keep such an operation a secret

4 – Too many people would have to be in on the conspiracy

5 – The physical evidence has all been explained by the 9/11 commission and the NIST study

6 – You must be somewhat deranged to even think that such a conspiracy could exist, yet alone succeed

7 – We are an exceptional and favored people, on the side of good, and only dastardly foreigners could do such a thing

8 – You have not explained every detail

A Few Principal Arguments from the Right (Primarily the U.S. right)

All of the above plus:

9 – This is a partisan attack; you must be a democrat, and maybe a liberal

Let me tackle each argument in turn:

1 – Our government would never do that

  • our government would never do that – Why not? It has never bothered them to do it to others nations, and people have denied it, averted their eyes, claimed it was a good thing, rationalized it or denied it
  • evidence of conspiracy – There was a conspiracy; the government has said so. A key question is: Who were the conspirators?
  • naivety – This was me a while back. Even with knowledge of destabilization efforts in Chile, Argentina, Iran, Iraq, East Timor, on and on, I accepted the narrative on 9/11. In fact, I gave the issue almost no thought.
  • it is an empire – Empires are ruthless

2 – Our government is incompetent and could not pull it off

  • our government is too incompetent – Well how competent do they have to be? They have obviously done many, many things requiring great competence. The technological dominance and military dominance of the U.S. does not speak to institutional incompetence. This is a bankrupt argument; it is glib, superficial, and not based on reality
  • flawless execution – Flawless execution is seldom necessary

3 – They could never keep such an operation a secret

  • Manhattan project – It seems to me that they pulled that off, and in great secrecy
  • media control mechanisms – keeping it a secret it not that hard given media control, media complicity, media subversion, media cowardice, media greed, careerism, belief in the cause, failure to question, institutional pressures serving as incentives and disincentives and shoddy thinking in the media
  • silencing of whistle blowers, in myriad ways

4 – Too many people would have to be in on the conspiracy

  • How many were involved? Just how big do you think the conspiracy would have to be? Perhaps given the level of control exerted in the government, the military, the bureaucracy, there would need to be a relatively small number of people in the know. Right now, I can’t address this with numbers – I will have to leave that to others – but it may be that only a small cadre would be needed, if they were in positions of power. There are numerous mechanisms that may be used to control others in such a situation. These include:
  • Direct bureaucratic authority – chain of command and discipline
  • Coercion and direct threats – personal and family – legal and extra legal
  • Appeals to patriotism and capability of superiors
  • Information Control – Lies and disinformation – information doled out on a need-to-know basis – keeping secrets
  • Marginalization of dissenters, moving them aside, up to disciplinary action and dismissal – denigration of dissenters
  • Organizational structures – cells
  • Murder and assassination
  • Financial and other incentives
  • Financial and other disincentives
  • Careerism
  • Exploitation of sociopathy
  • Exploitation of career criminals
  • Recruitment of mercenaries – recruitment of sociopathic persons
  • Recruitment of patsies
  • control of operatives – paid to do a job –follow orders

5 – The physical evidence has all been explained by the 9/11 commission, the NIST study and other studies (FEMA???)

  • There is a voluminous amount of refutation of the study by the 9/11 commission, the NIST study and other studies. I will not document these here, but refer you to others such as David Ray Griffin, Architects and Engineers for 9/11, and many other groups
  • The studies do not begin to explain the very well documented physical evidence, and they are contradicted in almost all essential points
  • we do have our nutters, but we also have very serious scholars – scientists, engineers, pilots, ex-government, ex-spies, ex-military, ex-cabinet ministers
  • there are the original researchers, and those who restate the results of these researches

Some of the things to be explained do include the following:

Briefly, these are:

  • Sudden onset
  • Straight down
  • Almost free fall speed
  • Total collapse
  • Sliced steel
  • Pulverization of concrete and other materials
  • Dust clouds
  • Horizontal ejections
  • Demolition rings
  • Sounds produced by explosions
  • Molten metal
  • The lack of testimony from individuals who personally placed explosive devices or who saw them placed does not weaken the controlled demolition hypothesis.
  • If the author is able to produce a theory that more parsimoniously and comprehensively explains the presence of these 11 phenomena, it will be a useful addition to the debate.

6 – You must be somewhat deranged to even think that such a conspiracy could exist, yet alone succeed

  • This is in fact an ad hominen attack, and one without basis. I could be wrong in some aspects of my belief, but my mind works reasonably well. A large number of people in the 9/11 truth movement are professionals, with good reputations in their fields. To denigrate them as “tin foil hat conspiracy theorists” is absurd. It is a shabby and indefensible position
  • denigration of those who posit a different story
  • tin foil hat – no debate -ad hominen attack

7 – Demands that we explain every detail

  • what we can’t answer – many things are hidden from us
  • It is a secret conspiracy – obviously we can’t answer every question!
  • In a court of law, to my knowledge, every last detail need not be tied down to win a conspiracy conviction

8 – We are an exceptional and favored people, on the side of good, and only dastardly foreigner could do such a thing

  • Denigration –demonization of foreigners
  • Puffery about U.S. purity

9 – This is a partisan attack; you must be a democrat, and maybe a liberal

  • To claim that this is a partisan issue is untrue – just plain wrong – some of the people questioning the story are democrats– many are republicans – some are liberals – many are conservatives – many are right wing libertarians
  • This is an issue that transcends political affiliation, and any left-right distinctions (impoverished distinctions in themselves)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *