There was a time, let’s say 5+ years ago before Trump, Brexit, Covid-19 and all that, when I tended to find myself in broad agreement with my contemporaries about what was true and what was not, and what was a crazy conspiracy theory, and what was not.
Since those times, “conspiracy theory” has increasingly become a bullshit term that people throw at conjectures they dislike or disagree with, according to their allegiance or politics. This is daft of course; conspiracies do happen, and people of all sorts of political persuasions believe, or disbelieve, them. Some are true, some are not true. Watergate? Russiagate? Cambridge Analytica? The lab leak? The January 6th Capital Riot? The Illuminati? The Great Train Robbery? Take your pick.
Some conspiracy theories are more far-fetched and obviously untrue than others, though, and more clearly merit the epithet. Of these, the theory that the buildings attacked by planes on September 11, 2001 were simultaneously attacked with bombs from inside in order to demolish them, is, in my book, an outstanding example.
20 years since the terrible event, this “Truther” account of 9/11 has not gone away. This I learned while watching the recent Joe Rogan podcast with Tim Dillon. I was surprised to hear Tim Dillon (who I like) sympathise with the idea that there must have been something else going on to have brought the buildings down.
And the often argued response from Rogan, that the controlled demolition is invalid because "science" shows planes could have brought down the buildings, I find equally annoying. Debating this technical point concedes legitimacy to what is fundamentally a stupid idea.
Terrorists would never have co-ordinated a controlled explosion in tandem with a plane attack.
Why? Imagine the conversation.
Conspirator 1: So, it is all agreed. We hijack jet planes and crash them into the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and the US Capitol Building.
Conspirator 2: Yes! But shouldn't we also detonate bombs inside the buildings at the same time, so that they fall down?
Conspirator 1: What? We are using planes as bombs, that is the plan.
Conspirator 2: If we only use planes as bombs, perhaps the buildings will not collapse. We need to detonate bombs in the buildings when the planes hit, to make sure the buildings are demolished.
Conspirator 1: Why do we care if the buildings are demolished? Let them demolish the buildings afterwards, when they are damaged beyond repair, and bathed in blood, and we are at war.
Conspirator 2: Best to make sure, with controlled explosions in the buildings, to make them fall down. Only then will we be at war.
Conspirator 1: Why? We will train suicide pilots to hijack four airliners and crash them and their passengers into four of the biggest and most famous buildings in America. It will be the greatest and most devastating terror attack in history. Unimaginable death and destruction in New York City and Washington D.C., brought down from the skies by their own planes, and broadcast live on TV. Now you say we should also put bombs in the buildings as well? That must require many operatives secretly planting large quantities of strategically placed explosives in office buildings that are usually full of people and always under security surveillance, with the likely risk of betrayal, discovery and mission failure, just to make sure the buildings fall down. My friend! Are you serious? Are you crazy?
Conspirator 2: Are we not meant to be?
There was no rationale, and no motive, to add controlled explosions to what we already know they did, whoever did it. It would have been mad for them to try. It is silly for us to suppose they might have. A priori, It did not happen.
Comments
Post a Comment