I No Longer Believe in the 9/11 Conspiracy BUT...
Contrary to what many skeptics say about conspiracy theorists, I have changed my mind based on new information.
I finally got an explanation to the lynch pin of my belief in the 'inside job' hypothesis: The melting temperature of steel. The melting point of industrial steel is several thousand degrees higher than jet fuel burns, so therefore the fire could not have melted the beams and caused the collapse, right? Well, that's what I thought, and I wasn't alone. There is a fundamental flaw though and that's that while the temperature at which steel liquefies is much higher than burning jet fuel, the temperature at which steel can bow and warp is a few hundred degrees lower than jet fuel (think of a blacksmith melting iron with coal fire). So there you go. That's how it happened.
HOWEVER, I would have encountered this information a lot earlier if the defenders of the official version hadn't been such dicks. Whenever the questions were brought up, the believers in the official version would engage in ad hominem attacks and never (and I did a lot of Internet research) NEVER address the scientific issues beyond some vague appeal to authority (the FAA said it was this way and therefore it's true). No melt versus sag discussion ever came up. Instead they would say that what the non-believers were saying was horrible and unpatriotic. Okay, let's put that idea right out of it's misery. If I am riding in a car and for some reason I think, even if I'm wrong, that the driver is a maniac who has set the car on fire and is running over pedestrians, and I speak up and say "Hey, I think this driver might be a maniac." that doesn't mean that I hate the car. It means that I have a concern that should probably be addressed, whether I'm right, or wrong. "Why do you think that?" is infinitely more constructive than "You're just crazy." It's not an insult to the memories of the victims to investigate 9/11. If someone died and you think they were murdered it's not and insult to their memory to try to find the murderer. In fact, how many movies, books, plays, and TV shows have been based on the unassailable morality of trying to find someone's killer? Even if you turn out to be incorrect, it is never wrong to ask the question.
It's also worth noting that people felt that their government was capable of doing this. It's worth addressing why people in "the greatest country in the world", as we're always reminded that we are, feel that the people that run things are capable of mass murder. Deep down, we think our leaders are monsters. Maybe they should consider trying to...I don't know...not seem like monsters. Frankly, while I no longer believe that they actually did plan and execute 9/11, I have no problem, in light of the last 7 years, believing that they are capable of doing it; not intellectually, but ethically. They're not capable of pull it off, but they're capable of wanting to. The opportunistic way they have trotted out the little black dress of 9/11 every time they needed to justify some new war or draconian domestic policy, demonstrates that.
I still believe though, that its possible that our people saw it coming and let it happen. No proof, mind you. Just a suspicion. After all:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".
- Project For a New American Century's 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses
I finally got an explanation to the lynch pin of my belief in the 'inside job' hypothesis: The melting temperature of steel. The melting point of industrial steel is several thousand degrees higher than jet fuel burns, so therefore the fire could not have melted the beams and caused the collapse, right? Well, that's what I thought, and I wasn't alone. There is a fundamental flaw though and that's that while the temperature at which steel liquefies is much higher than burning jet fuel, the temperature at which steel can bow and warp is a few hundred degrees lower than jet fuel (think of a blacksmith melting iron with coal fire). So there you go. That's how it happened.
HOWEVER, I would have encountered this information a lot earlier if the defenders of the official version hadn't been such dicks. Whenever the questions were brought up, the believers in the official version would engage in ad hominem attacks and never (and I did a lot of Internet research) NEVER address the scientific issues beyond some vague appeal to authority (the FAA said it was this way and therefore it's true). No melt versus sag discussion ever came up. Instead they would say that what the non-believers were saying was horrible and unpatriotic. Okay, let's put that idea right out of it's misery. If I am riding in a car and for some reason I think, even if I'm wrong, that the driver is a maniac who has set the car on fire and is running over pedestrians, and I speak up and say "Hey, I think this driver might be a maniac." that doesn't mean that I hate the car. It means that I have a concern that should probably be addressed, whether I'm right, or wrong. "Why do you think that?" is infinitely more constructive than "You're just crazy." It's not an insult to the memories of the victims to investigate 9/11. If someone died and you think they were murdered it's not and insult to their memory to try to find the murderer. In fact, how many movies, books, plays, and TV shows have been based on the unassailable morality of trying to find someone's killer? Even if you turn out to be incorrect, it is never wrong to ask the question.
It's also worth noting that people felt that their government was capable of doing this. It's worth addressing why people in "the greatest country in the world", as we're always reminded that we are, feel that the people that run things are capable of mass murder. Deep down, we think our leaders are monsters. Maybe they should consider trying to...I don't know...not seem like monsters. Frankly, while I no longer believe that they actually did plan and execute 9/11, I have no problem, in light of the last 7 years, believing that they are capable of doing it; not intellectually, but ethically. They're not capable of pull it off, but they're capable of wanting to. The opportunistic way they have trotted out the little black dress of 9/11 every time they needed to justify some new war or draconian domestic policy, demonstrates that.
I still believe though, that its possible that our people saw it coming and let it happen. No proof, mind you. Just a suspicion. After all:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".
- Project For a New American Century's 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses
posted by John McKenna at 12:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home