In a recent article, ultraconservative pundit Paul Craig Roberts goes on at great length about the gullibility of Americans and our willingness to believe any lie we're fed by the government.
His main example is the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11, which he sees as a second Reichstag Fire, a manufactured event designed as a pretext for a great power grab by the Bush administration and their allies. He comments:
"Americans never check any facts. Who do you know, for example, who has even read the Report of the 9/11 Commission, much less checked the alleged facts reported in that document. I can answer for you. You don’t know anyone who has read the report or checked the facts."
While I'll admit to not reading every word in the 9/11 Commission report, I have, like many other Americans, read large portions of it and used it as a reference source on the events it examines. What's more, I've also read portions of the FEMA and NIST reports.
In fact, anyone who wants to can read these reports or find clear summaries of the facts they contain, and I do actually know people who have read them all and who don’t also share Roberts’ conspiratorial mania.
Roberts is convinced that we have bought a pack of lies about 9/11 and the War on Terror and various other conspiracies because we don't take the trouble to read these reports or look beyond the news.
The truth is the conclusions of almost all of those who composed these reports, of the experts consulted, and of those who have studied them don't support the conspiracy theories Roberts advocates.
The truth is the 9/11 Commission report does not say the government conspired to destroy the twin towers. The FEMA and NIST reports definitely don't say the towers were brought down by anything other than the airplanes that were deliberately crashed into them.
Perhaps rather than being gullible, the American people have a certain amount of common sense – enough to know that the accepted theory of the events of 9/11 makes a hell of a lot more sense than the crazy conspiracy theories of the lunatic fringe, which Roberts finds so fascinating.
They may not be familiar with the work of William of Ockham, but the public seems to be able to apply his basic maxim, Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate, which is most commonly rendered in modern terms as "The simplest answer is usually the correct answer."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bob Jones
Obviously there was no conspiracy.
I don't think the reason those numbers are so high, is soley because of gullability.
Some people hate Bush so much, they just want to blame everything on him - when, if you are going to blame anybody - you'd have to blame the last 10/15 presidents and maybe more before that.
Some people see that 5 years after 9/11, we're still not safer or any closer to ridding the world of terrorism, to blame it on Bush gives you the feeling atleast somebody is in control, some people just can't accept that there are men living in caves who did this and we haven't found them.
2 - Deano
Part of the problem is that when you repeat something often enough, people start to believe it (i.e. Iraq had a hand in 9-11, or the WTC was actually blown up by the US govt. etc.).
My sister-in-law, an otherwise intelligent, highly educated person, an accountant no less, is positive that the US government destroyed the WTC with a controlled explosion because of the way it fell. She picks up the parts of the incident that supports her interpretation and ignores the rest. It is selective evidence gathering - counting the hits ignore the misses.
3 - Bryan
The best explanation of Ockham's Razor that I've heard says not that the "simplest" answer is necessarily true, but rather the answer with the least amount of assumptions, which I think actually fits the situation better. Conspiracy theorists assume that the 9/11 Commission is a cover-up, and thus all following "logic" is based on that initial assumption, which is a pretty damn big one to make. Sometimes things are more complicated than they seem and taking the simplest answer is a cop-out, but there has to be a logical explanation for your logic rather than simple guesswork.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with exploring the possibility of these conspiracy theories, however. As one website puts it, "the Razor directs us to study in depth the simplest of the theories. It does not guarantee that the simplest theory will be correct, it merely establishes priorities." We have a plausible and perfectly reasonable explanation offered by the 9/11 Commission and thus the simplest theory has already been explored, so now there's room to explore alternatives. But until those alternatives can be as well-documented and logical as the 9/11 Commission (and I doubt they ever will be) it's unethical to mislead the public by publishing and promoting them as empirical and objective fact.
Very good writing, Dave. You strike a nice balance between skepticism of the government and skepticism of anti-authoritarians pushing an agenda in the face of practically undeniable evidence. I don't trust the government very much (whether controlled by a Republican or Democratic administration) but I also don't trust people who say "I don't care if I'm right, I'm pushing an agenda" (which a friend of mine was told to his face by a student activist at Boston College).
4 - Dave Nalle
Well put, Bryan. My feeling about the razor in this situation is that when you already have perfectly reasonable explanations for events and you go looking for alternatives because you don't like the explanations you have, then you need to look very carefully at WHY you're looking for alternative answers.
The 9/11 deniers have some interesting scientific questions, but frankly they are more than answered in the NIST reports, which are part of an ongoing study which is turning up more information all the time and is, in fact, generating a great deal of new structural engineering theory in the process. The NIST has even set up real material simulations of the fires inside the WTC towers and done extensive computer modeling.
What I find with conspiracy theories - and this one is no exception. Is that when you see a claim that information is being 'suppressed', you can often go out and find exactly that information in a public source. And that seems like a red flag to me. The example here being the widespread claim that computer models of the WTC airplane strikes and building collapses have been suppressed, when in fact they're easily available on the NIST site and elsewhere.
What Roberts - who has a far-right agenda - is doing is basically politically motivated scaremongering, and to me that's worse than most of what Bush has ever done.
Dave
5 - Dave Nalle
Some people see that 5 years after 9/11, we're still not safer or any closer to ridding the world of terrorism, to blame it on Bush gives you the feeling atleast somebody is in control, some people just can't accept that there are men living in caves who did this and we haven't found them.
The irony here being that terrorism was around for decades before 9/11 and we were even more unsafe than we are now and we just didn't worry about it. Statistically, as individuals, we're at no greater risk of terrorism now than we ever have been, but our awareness has been heightened. It's still much less of a threat than drunk drivers, heart disease, poisonous snakes, falling in the bath tub and a hundred other dangers many of which are far less controllable, but it captures the public imagination and hence attracts conspiracy theorists and generates an unreasonable level of paranoia.
Dave
6 - Nancy
There was a really interesting, long, long, looooooong thread here on BC specifically about that conspiracy theory that Dubya blew up the WTC. Even I find it a little stretched, & I'm always looking for something evil to pin on BushCo. ;)
7 - pleasexcusetheinterruption12
How did we ever find out about the Reichstag fire anyways? I dont suppose Hitler left it in his suicide note...o wait Hitler didnt commit suicide he's hiding in Albania!
8 - Michael J. West
I know the thread Nancy was talking about and I deeply, deeply, deeply resented it; I pointed out that I had watched the plane go into the Pentagon on 9/11 and the conspiracy theorists on the thread spent the better part of a week telling me that I hadn't seen that at all, what I had seen was (insert paranoia-induced image here).
Self-righteousness and condescension are natural byproducts of conspiracy theory, but when I'm told that I'm gullible because I had the compunction to trust my own eyesight, I just fucking get pissed off.
9 - Bliffle
Even so, Kean and Hamilton, of the 911 Report, have said in interviews that they got a lot of stonewalling and CYA from government bureaucrats when conducting their investigations.
10 - JustOneMan
Bliffle..."Even so...they got a lot of stonewalling and CYA from government bureaucrats "
Please that is their opinion and has no connection to Bush being the mastermind behind 911....
11 - Dave Nalle
Plus, covering their asses reflexively is what government bureaucrats do, regardless of whether there's any real reason for it.
And as far as I can tell what the government bureaucrats were trying to cover up has since come out - that they knew who several of the hijackers were and where they were, but hadn't bothered to bring them in for questioning or investigate what they might be up to.
Dave
12 - Dean
What the government bureaucrats covered up is still not being reported. “Terrorism” on the scale of 9/11 is something new for this country, and the root cause is being swept under the rug.
We know who was behind 9/11, and we know why it was done. We are not welcome in the Middle East. We have to learn to get our noses out from under the Middle East tents.
13 - Dave Nalle
In what way is the root cause being swept under the rug?
We all know that terrorism largely results from the religious zealotry of the terrorists and in particular their hatred of Israel.
Since we support democracy and Israel is the leading democracy in the area and therefore a country we support, we are a terrorist target because of their irrational hatred of israel.
Pretty simple, really.
So, one of the best things we can do is support Israel even more just to thumb our noses at the terrorists.
Dave
14 - Dean
Thumbing noses is something kids do -- or those who think like kids.
Our policy in the Middle East puts Israel's interests above ours.
The US demands compliance with UN Resolution 1559, but has been silent on Res 242 for almost 40 years.
Even a kid can understand that this hypocrisy is detrimental to Americans.
And "supporting democracy" in the Middle East has also been shown to be hypocritical.
15 - erik
if the 9/11 Commission wasn't covering up the truth, why did it make the following 115 ommissions and distortions?
Why did they ignore 70% of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee's questions, the ones Gorelick said would be the roadmap?
Top 40 reason to doubt the official story
16 - Paul
Americans are scared little sheep terrified of questioning the government or its manufactured propaganda jammed down our throats every single day. Can any one of you can explain how building 7 collapsed in a perfect freefall from the foundations downward? Do you even know what I am talking about? Have you watched it collapse? I recommend you watch the video available all over the web with Dan Rather commenting that it looks like a controlled demolition. Then, have you ever seen Larry Silverstein's (the owner of the WTC) interview where he states "I gave the order to pull it and we watched the building collapse." ?? Well, there is a starting point for skeptics to start asking questions. As far as motive goes, it is not so simple, yet it is in your face. Bush doesn't have the brains to be the mastermind of this conspiracy. He is just a willing puppet and one of the worst (generational - look at the Bush family history of treason funding both the Bolshevicks and Hitler) traitors this country has ever seen, selling out our country to the globalist system, destroying our economy, besmirching our name and subverting our constitution at every turn. Those who support him are supporting the destruction of America itself. What Fools! He is doing this on behalf of an international criminal elite. These elite (that is people with way, way more money and power than you ever dreamed of) have conspired to create a centralized Orwellian global government system under high-tech totalitarian control grid (biometrics, Big Brother cameras, microchip implants, destruction of freedoms, erosion of sovereignty, etc) in a constant state of perpetual warfare which serves nobody except those who make money from it. Listen, tyranny is the norm throughout history. A cursory glance at the history books will prove it to you and then you only have to look at Caligula, Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others to see what these monsters are capable of. Manufactured terror is the oldest trick in the book dating back to the Babylonian and Roman empires especially and reaching into the 20th and 21st century. They use terror to scare the public into submission who respond like domesticated animals to every command. I hope you are beginning to get the picture. If not, then enjoy your slavery.
17 - JustOneMan
Paul...I suggest you call your doctor immediately...you need to have your Lithium dose adjusted...
In addition were you on the grassy knoll?
UFNMORON
18 - Dave Nalle
Erik, Paul...the maintenance department called. It's time for the annual rotation on the magic crystals in your tinfoil hats.
Dave
19 - Michael Gill
Paul Craig Roberts was given only one reference by you (ultraconservative pundit) but he has a strong background including Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan. See more by checking Wikipedia.
I first came across him a few years back through his book: The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice (2000). It is an excellent, eye-opening read.
Bryan simply addresses feelings, opinions and the value of believing what the first group of "experts" has to say about 9/11.
Hmm. I don't believe the Bush was primarily responsible for the attacks, if at all. Why wouold the person in charge sit in an elementary school classroom with a deer-in-the-headlights look on his face?
But as people review video, and learn new facts (such as the molten steel in the basements that took a month to cool -- a kerosene fire could not have caused that) they demand a better explanation. It's a damn crime that 343 rescue workers died in that tragedy, among the many other people working there, and to not prosecute someone for that mass murder is criminal.
Americans naturally believed the Warren commission's determination that only Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible in the assassination of JFK. BUT, when as Zapruder film was seen by more people, it became "obvious" that he was struck from the front. That lead to "conspiracy theories".
To think that our nation is immune from false flag attacks is perfectly naive.
Previous false flag events pushed the US into war:
1) Sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor (killing 272 Americans) started the Spanish-American war in 1898 -- the explosion was later found to have been caused by an internal explosion, not from a mine in the harbor.
2) The Lusitania was carrying munitions as it crossed the Atlantic when it was hit by the Germans. Americans were told it was a cruise ship filled only with civilians. This incident fueled the uproar for joining WWI against the Germans.
3) In 1941, the military had broken the Japanese code and evidence has surfaced that they were aware of an impending attack but they let it happen. The uproar dragged us into WWII.
4) In Vietnam, it was the Gulf of Tonkin incident; another lie to get involved in a war.
Watch the movie, V for Vendetta. "People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people."
20 - Dave Nalle
I'm quite aware of Roberts' background, but if you look at his history and his writing, since his time working in the Reagan administration, he's gradually migrated to the lunatic fringe and that's what he's known for now.
I certainly agree that there was a great deal of negligence and inattention which contributed to 9/11. The government just didn't take a possibility like that seriously. But that's not a conspiracy.
As for the molten metal and other structural concerns, there are many explanations which seem more plausible than the WTC having been intentionally demolished. I'm not going to go into all of them here, you can read the reports referenced in the article. For every claim made by conspiracy theorists there's a simpler and more logical explanation. For example, the claim of thermite is based on Magnesium Oxide in the dust of the WTC, but MgO is a common component of structural concrete and aluminum alloys used in construction. That's just a typical example.
Dave
21 - GAZ
The 9/11 Commission report says the twin towers collapsed due to a Pancake Effect in 10 seconds. This completely defies the laws of physics. It is impossible. Please, please, please Check this out for yourself. If the Pancake theory is therefore not true/a lie then how valid is the rest of the document?
Once again, I don't care about opinion, I just care about facts. Look them up
22 - Victor Plenty
Obviously the WTC towers were accelerated downward by a local field of increased gravitational intensity, which was generated by technology built by the LGM from Area 51, who were coerced to participate through the mind control techniques developed by the CIA after they invented LSD.
QED.
23 - Dave Nalle
GAZ, the towers did NOT collapse in 10 seconds. Maybe you shoudl read the report or just try to think back to the actual events. Tower 2 took half-an-hour to collapse, not 10 seconds. I was watching. Even building 7 which is the most suspicious of the collapses took almost a minute to come down completely.
Dave
24 - Michael J. West
I should point out (at least I feel that I should) that there genuinely ARE questions about 9/11 to which I don't have the answers. Why 7 WTC fell, for example; even FEMA says "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Or where the wreckage from Flight 93 is. Or Why people were able to get cellphone reception on the planes.
I don't know the answers to those questions. I'm not saying there aren't perfectly reasonable answers; I'm just saying I don't know them.
What I resent is the "armchair experts." The people who really pissed me off in, for example, the Terri Schiavo case were the ones who suddenly became neurologists and able, without the slightest education or experience in medicine or human behavior, to form diagnoses of Terri by watching little snippets of video.
It's the same thing now: suddenly people are becoming structural engineers, electronics experts, metallurgists, and what-have-you, and are able with no real foundation in mechanics or physics or aviation, to say exactly why this or that happened. Or people who think that the official explanation doesn't make sense, but say that the fact that it doesn't make sense is ample evidence that 9/11 was planned and covered up by the government.
I don't mind questions at all. I don't even mind people questioning the official version of what happened. (Hell, we're STILL questioning the at-one-time official version of what happened to the USS Maine and the JFK assassination, just to name a few.) But the people who produce sensational answers to those questions with neither (a) the qualifications to formulate those answers, or (b) evidence for those answers other than that you think the official answers are suspicious...those people are not doing any justice to themselves or the concept of "truth."
End rant.
25 - Michael Gill
From the 9/11 Commission Report (section 9.2):
"From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower."
I laughed when I read that you thought it took a half hour to fall, but perhaps you meant beginning at the time of the crash of the aircraft.