In previous posts I have outlined a few of the reasons I am skeptical of the official 911 account. I will not repeat them here. Rather, I offer a brief analysis of a few of the arguments that are used to defend the official position.
For the sake of brevity I use government in the following propositions as short hand for elements within governments. Obviously not every government official (still less every government employee) could possibly be in on such plots.
Common Objections to 911 “conspiracy” theories
(1) Governments would never do such a thing.
This argument is not only prima facie implausible, but is easily shown to be false. See (3) below.
(2) My government would never do such a thing.
While few believe (1), many patriotic Americans are firmly committed to (2). Such persons reason, “Yes, some evil states may be involved in such things, but not my government; my country is special.” This belief is supported by at least two faulty assumptions. (a) My nation could not produce leaders that are capable of such things. (b) My nation’s government has checks and balances that make such conspiracies highly unlikely.
As to (a), one need not be a Christian to see that such a sanguine view of human nature is contradicted by our most basic experience of the world. And (b) reveals a deficient view of checks and balances in operation. First, the machinery of checks and balances only works if men make it work. There were several things that could have been done by the executive or legislature to check Roe v Wade; but there was no heart for it. Second, the checks only ever kick into motion under circumstances of ordinary procedure. In the nature of the case, they are non-existent in case of secret conspiracy.
Apart from this, consider the following. Suppose a small cadre of rogue government officials wished to start a war with nation x, but had neither a good justification nor public support for it. Suppose further that they had the means and opportunity to stage some event (a bombing, a fire, a murder) and pin it on nation x. What would stop them from staging such an event other than the thought that they might get caught? Unless one holds the belief that his government could not possibly contain such rogue officials, which is a version of (a), the answer is, obviously, nothing.
Furthermore, patriotic Americans should remember that (2) is accepted by patriotic citizens of all countries. Many citizens of the Soviet Union would not have believed that their government under Stalin was capable of the most wicked and criminal activities perpetrated in modern times. Yet it was. That the same holds for many other countries I will not bother to cite. There is nothing more certain to fan the flame of a show of so-called patriotism than the display of power. Probably the citizens of every great power in modern history have thought the same way.
(3) Governments have never done such a thing.
The only way to defend this assertion would be to define “such a thing” so narrowly as to exclude any counterexamples which do not feature jet aircraft, high-jackings, and sky scrapers. But given a broader reading, everyone who is not completely innocent of history knows otherwise.
Since (3) is false, this implies that (1) is false. That something in fact happened entails that it could happen.
(4) My government has never done such a thing.
If we take my as referring to the U.S. government, then history teaches us otherwise. I will mention here a few “such things” and leave it to the reader to do his own research.
Pearl Harbor – Roosevelt not only knew when and where the attack would take place while preventing Kimmel and Short from knowing this, but he had previously implemented a Pacific strategy whose aim was to provoke a Japanese attack.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident – this incident did not even occur, yet Johnson used it as the excuse to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
The Attack on the USS Liberty – Johnson not only knew that the Israelis intentionally attacked a U.S. Naval ship and lied about it, but forbade U.S. forces to protect the ship during the attack.
Aside from these incidents, a number of other false-flag operations have recently come to light that were contemplated but never carried out. These include Operation Northwoods, George W. Bush’s suggestion during the run up to the Iraq War that the Air Force paint U.S. spy planes in UN colors in hopes that they would be shot down, and Dick Cheney’s recent consideration of attacking U.S. naval vessels with mock Iranian PT boats.
(5) Governments could never pull something off like this and get away with it.
This objection is better than the first four since it does not assume that the government is above such exploits. The problem, though, is that governments have gotten away with such things. In fact, they have gotten away with them repeatedly. Stalin, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Begin and many others all hatched plots in order to lead their countries into war, blackmail other nations, or garner international support. And they all got away with it.
(6) Governments are too incompetent to pull off something this big.
This is the most reasonable objection of the six. This is not due to its strength, but because it exhibits healthy skepticism towards government. The problem with this, however, is that governments are not typically incompetent; they are, in fact, very good at what they do. This is seen in the areas of war, propaganda, theft, intimidation, running protection rackets, protecting its own, and numerous other unsavory activities. And these are just the kind of virtues that would be helpful in running or covering-up a 911-type plot.
Governments are good at many other things that they are seldom given credit for: education, the war on drugs, economic policy, to name a few. Take just one example. By any reasonable standard of measurement, government schools have been a debacle in terms of educating America’s youth in basic reading, writing and math skills. But why should we believe that their goal is to produce a clear-thinking, independent, and literate public? Indeed, this is precisely what they do not want. It is in their interest to produce muddle-headed, ignorant statists who are skeptical about everything except what the state tells them. And if this were their goal (that it has been the goal of the U.S. government is easily demonstrated), public education has been a great success.
Conclusion
All six of these propositions are false. This does not, of course, prove that elements of the U.S. government were involved in the 911 attacks. But 911 is really beside the point. What matters is that our people begin to open themselves to the possibility that things may quite different than what they are told.
You left out the common objections
(7) that al Qaeda admits to having done this – the “signed confession” objection;
(8) that the instrumental perpetrators (the 19 young men) have been identified, their motives have been identified, and their means of carrying out the attack have been identified – the “demonstration” objection; and
(9) that it is easier to explain (8) than it is to explain the government-is-behind-it theory – the Ockham’s razor’s objection.
-TurretinFan
I think MRB addressed this under points 1 and 4. The question of who carried out the attack (whether it’s Pearl Harbor or 911) is different from the question of governmental foreknowledge and involvement.
Related to MRB’s point 2b above, what is the check and balance preventing governments from falsifying your points 7 and 8? Isn’t it the government itself that has produced the “confession” and “demonstration” here?
TF -
Here we go again. For new readers, see comments here to review the previous debate or 911.
As for your objections, they are factual not, like the ones I gave, heuristic. You are changing the subject.
But I will let you pursue this line. I have no desire to debate the facts concerning 911, but let me set the table for those who do.
Concerning the al Qaeda confession, identify what al Qaeda is, where it came from, and who speaks for it. Provide solid evidence and argument to support your answers. Unless these questions are answered, claims of “al Qaeda confessed to the crime,” are empty.
Concerning the perps, tell who they were, what their motives were, and how they could have used the means they supposedly did. Again, provide evidence and arguments.
++++++++
I hope, TF, the confession you mention is not that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If so, please do not waste any more of our time with your nonsense. Although the Neocons like to trump Khalid’s “confession” (Dana Perino did so just yesterday) no serious man could deem it credible. To see why, go to the link at top and go to comment #68.
of the 19 guilty perps how many are alive and well?
and how is it easier to explain that some incapable towel heads living in a cave managed to defy physics magicaly cause norad to stand down outsmart the most powerfull gov in the world etc etc etc etc etc then to explain the overwellming paper and evidence trail left by those who had the motive the means and the will to pull it off?
and I got a big kick out of the al qaeda confessed part you put in there – well i got a kick out of all of it actually
TF — since this is nearly the only issue you contend with us on, I’m wondering what is going on at rock bottom: is it really the “facts” persuading you, or is your view a consequence of your biblical view of the Civil Magistrate?
Mike,
If I recall correctly, you graduated from the Claremont Graduate School with an M.A. in philosophy. Did you take any courses with David Ray Griffin, who teaches in the Graduate School of Theology at Claremont? As you undoubtedly know, he, too, is a 9/11 skeptic.
Andrew -
Yes, now, unfortunately, called Claremont Graduate University. Griffin taught at the Claremont School of Theology which is not directly connected to CGS or the rest of the Claremont colleges. I did not meet him while I was there.
Yes, Griffin has written at least two books on 911. Either one would be a good place for the Kool Aid drinkers out there to begin a serious look at the 911 scam.
Brother Tim,
You wrote:
It’s about the only issue of contention with you, because it’s about the only point of disagreement between us.
Related to that, and in response to MRB’s comment, I agree that there is a factual component to the objections – but there is a factual component to objections (3) and (4) as well.
I am not willing to argue the facts here any more, because I don’t think that my target audience is open to an interpretation of the facts that is consistent with the “official” theory.
I just identified the objections to help complete the list. I realize that you and Michael (my brothers in Christ) do not accept those objections to have proper factual basis.
I didn’t mean to bring this up to challenge your theory that the government is somehow directly responsible (assuming I’ve understood your claim, which may be a bad assumption).
My view of the civil magistrate is in keeping with the WCF and the Scripture. I trust that you gentlemen do not take exception to the WCF’s statements.
I don’t naively imagine that all governments are good or even that governments are “basically good.” That said, I find the alternatives to the official theory to be untenable for a variety of reasons, many of which I’ve already explained.
-TurretinFan
TF,
Where is this signed confession? The FBI doesn’t seem to know about it, because Bin Laden has never been charged. Moreover, Al Qaeda doesn’t exist. Watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTTgpsAs4_c
I especially like the part where Rumsfeld shows the illustrations of massive high-tech bunkers the terrorists were using in Afghanistan. Too bad they were never found. Another one for the memory hole.
How did the government so quickly identify those 19 terrorist hijackers? Forensically? Not possible. Process of elimination? Only one small problem. No Arab names on any flight manifests.
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_17.htm
The “hijackers” had been training at US military bases:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/archive/10-30-01_Hopsicker-printable.pdf
But don’t bother responding, because I was just trying to complete the list of common sense objections to the government story. I am not willing to debate the issue with you because my target audience would not be open to an interpretation consistent with something other than the official story.
TF –
Even though you aparently do not wish to defend your additions to the list, could you at least respond to MB’s request regarding Al Quaeda?
Namely:
“Concerning the al Qaeda confession, identify what al Qaeda is, where it came from, and who speaks for it. Provide solid evidence and argument to support your answers. Unless these questions are answered, claims of “al Qaeda confessed to the crime,” are empty.”
A hint – your answer should make multiple references to Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Josh/MB/DPW,
I’m not sure what sort of evidence would be accepted by you. If I provide government reports – well – I know you won’t accept them. If I post articles on it from think tanks, again I don’t think that will count as evidence you would accept.
I could direct you to an article from the council on foreign relations, but for many people that’s even worse than government reports. Nevertheless, if you read that report, even if you read it as pure fiction, you’ll get a sense at least for what the claims about al Qaeda are.
Beyond that, the group produces videos, audio tapes, and documents. But surely you are aware of the bin Ladin video tapes and audio tapes.
-TurretinFan
Neo-con Steve Hays continues in his attempted takedown of MRB today by “exposing” MRB’s 911 skepticism. Again, no substantive arguments are given and instead “Mr. Philosopher” treats us to an endless barrage of buzzwords and rhetorical questions:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/911-truthers.html
I came by chance across this website. You may not be aware of the exclusive study I posted on the internet which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the U.S. government has not hitherto produced ANY hard proof that Muslim terrorists (the 19 named by the FBI) actually boarded the aircraft that allegedly crashed on 9/11. Since there exists no hard proof for this limb of the official account, the official account must be formally regarded at best as an allegation and more realistically as a monumental lie. My study is posted here: http://www.aldeilis.net/english/attachments/1614_noevidence.pdf