Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

The events surrounding September 11^th, 2001 are of intense interest and so they should be. If you are reading this article, you are probably old enough to remember that day; Sept. 11 could in a word be described as "memorable".

However, as time passes memories become distorted. 9/11 is not immune. In the wake of a lack of information, shock, emotions, and prejudices, bogus conspiracy theories have arisen. I write "bogus" because in-and-of themselves conspiracy theories should not be instantly discounted. However, once one examines the substance of 9/11 conspiracy theories they fall apart.

Many 9/11 conspiracy theories involve the supposed inability of the Twin Towers to collapse due to the impact force, and subsequent fires, produced by the airplanes flown into them. Some maintain that the collapse was the result of controlled demolitions, or even that no planes were flown into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon.

True, engineers and structural experts disagree as to whether those buildings could be brought down by planes acting as projectiles. This is the very reason basing arguments around the Twin Towers collapse are faulty. Experts disagree because they really do not know how a given structure will act when an airplane is flown into it; it is not the type of thing that happens everyday. Furthermore, it is beyond cost prohibitive to replicate the collapse of the Twin Towers. Does anyone really want to argue that a plane absolutely would, or would not, bring down a building the size of any one of those towers? Needless to say, the idea that no planes were flown into the World Trade Center is absurd.

The most damaging evidence to 9/11 conspiracy theories are the phone calls made from the hijacked planes to the ground. These phone conversations confirm the standard 9/11 narrative, in fact, the standard telling of events took its shape because of those phone conversations. These conversations are damaging because they confirm that men of Middle Eastern descent hijacked four planes and were attempting to use them as missiles.

To counter this evidence, conspiracy theorists maintain that the phone records, voice recordings, and testimonies of victims' families are false, or that the US government made every single call to family members and 9-1-1 operators with computerized voice synthesis. Moreover, some maintain that the hijack victims could not have made those calls as cells phones do not operate above 10,000 feet.

First, if the family members and 9-1-1 are lying, that would entail a whole host of people who are lying for no apparent reason. In fact, they would be engaging in a series of lies that involve their now dead compatriots, and in some cases family members. Such an assertion dramatically reduces believability by its sheer scale and unlikelihood.

Almost as equally unbelievable is the assertion that the government simulated the voices of the hijack victims. To set things straight, cell phones do work above 10,000 feet and even if they do not those now infamous planes were not always at 10,000 feet. Furthermore, not just cell phones were used. Airfones (you know the kind onboard a plane that you activate by swiping your credit card) were also used.

So, the hijack victims could have made those calls but some still insist that the government made those calls. They assert that the government obtained the identity of the passengers prior to take off, synthesized their voices, and then called their respective family members and a few 9-1-1 operators for good measure (as well as blocking any potential calls from the hijacked planes that would likely arise) . They also obtained personal information of the victims so that the details and flow of the conversations would appear more realistic. Furthermore, the government got the phone companies in on the conspiracy and the airlines as well. It did all of this without a single person leaking the operation. This notion stretches believability beyond its limits.

Further compounding the unlikely nature of 9/11 theories is the presence and admission of a terrorist organization known as Al Qaida. Remember the subsequent hours and days after the 9/11 attacks? Terrorist groups and criminal organization like FARC and the Medellin Drug Cartel stated that they were not involved in the attacks; Al Qaida's denial was conspicuously absent. Later it would deny involvement, and later still it would claim responsibility. Here we have probably he most sophisticated terrorist organization the world has ever seen, and it took credit for the attacks.

We know Al Qaida is willing and able to carry out sophisticated terrorist attacks. It did so before, and after, 9/11 on numerous occasions. It actually tried to blow up the World Trade Center eight years earlier. This fits with the modus operandi of targeting the same spot more than once, like the attacks that occurred in Bali and the Sinai. So, why should we not believe Al Qaida when it takes credit for the 9/11 attacks?

Some have speculated that events on the scale of 9/11 act as a cultural ink-plot test whereby individuals supply their own details, meaning, and perspective to make sense of the seemingly insensible. This seems to fit our current time. Many who disseminate such conspiracy theories already had deep suspicion of the US government prior to Sept 11 . . . As well they should. Various US government entities, throughout history, have perpetuated ugly acts. This is another reason why 9/11 conspiracies seem highly unlikely; the US government does not need a false operation in order to perform ugly acts. The US was already involved in Kuwait/Iraq before 2001. It merely escalated an already existing conflict. The story of how the US conducted a proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan is already well known.

A couple of caveats should be voiced to the conspiracy theorists. First, the US government has shown throughout history that it is morally capable of perpetrating an event like 9/11.

Second, some of the details surrounding Sept. 11 are debatable. However, this happens with any event the size of 9/11; one expects it to happen. This is what makes 9/11 conspiracy theories so frustrating . . . They obfuscate what really happened. Something as enormous as 9/11 is going to have variations in certain details of its narrative.

I will willingly entertain certain milder, and more plausible, assertions made concerning 9/11. It seems plausible that various government entities had some knowledge of the attacks before they happened. It is possible that incompetence, or even a willingness to let the attacks happen, is to blame. It is also possible that the US government engaged in a cover up, post-9/11, for any number of reasons. But, does any of this compare the wild assertions that scores of victims' voices were faked, or that or that only computer generated aircraft crashed into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers?

I admit that by writing this article, I have on some level participated in the latest cultural Rorschach Test. Nevertheless, how can one remain totally passionless when something as tragic and influential as the 9/11 attacks has taken place?

The general narrative of 19 terrorists, of Middle Eastern descent, hijacking four passenger planes, and then using them as missiles to strike the Pentagon and World Trade Center is by far the most plausible explanation of events. I debated even writing that last sentence, as we all knew what happened; America was there.

The other explanations for what happened on September 11 exist as alternatives, but if any one of them became the generally accepted narrative, the problems of that narrative would far outweigh the supposed problems of the current one. Every narrative that carries significance screams for alternatives. If those alternatives do not exist, there is no shortage of individuals willing to invent them.