Tuesday, June 6

Why are the left's conspiracy theories so complicated?

tWe have all heard the crazy conspiracy theories of the left:

"The plane that hit the World Trade Center had no windows"

"The plane that hit the World Trade Center had a pod attached to it."

"A missile struck the Pentagon."

"The Twin towers were destroyed by explosives, not airplanes."

First, these conspiracy theories are not only idiotic but they are also completely impractical to ever be a real conspiracy, especially taking into account the facts of the day. Perhaps none of these people have ever had to run a business or do not have a science education. Now there are some scientists who claim that they can prove scientifically that the 9/11 attacks were done with missiles and explosives, not hijacked airplanes. However, there is more than enough proof to disprove their claims. In addition, nobody in this group has bothered to really think through how a conspiracy like this would have been carried out. Take the following:

Why would a conspiracy go through all the trouble to somehow gain access to dozens of offices in the Twin Towers when they could have simply hidden the explosives on the planes as mislabeled cargo.

Their theory requires a large number of highly trained specialists who are knowingly preparing to bring down buildings, killing thousands. At the same time, the conspiracy is exposed to the constant risk of discovery of the planted explosives. Use fewer people and it takes longer to plant the explosives, increasing the possibility that the explosives will be discovered. Use more people to plant the explosives in less time and you increase the possibility of someone talking sometime.

Shipping the explosives as air cargo requires only the smallest amount of people to complete the task. Then there is the issue of where do you get all that explosives and where do you get all the money to pay off the demolition experts? Do you really think that these people are going to carry out this conspiracy on Government pay? Estimating a $10 million payoff each with 100 people involved and that will cost you $1 billion. Could the payoff have been less? Sure, but that then leaves open the risk of a conspirator selling the story to the media. How much do you think the press will pay for proof that the attacks were a conspiracy? They could name their price. There is also the issue of why would the Government need to plant explosives in the buildings when ‘the plan’ called for hitting the buildings with large passenger aircraft loaded with fuel?

Why would they switch airplanes and hide airplanes and passengers to hit the Twin Towers with another plane (the one with no windows) and the Pentagon with a missile when they could simply have installed a very small remote control device to take control of the plane while at the same time cutting off the pilot's communication?

Their theory here has a really high set of obstacles, namely, just where do you hide the planes that the Government 'claims' were hijacked? Then there is the issue of the passengers. Some of the theories claim that the passengers were in on the conspiracy. Once again, just how much do you expect each of these people will need to be paid off? Even so, how do you keep these people from eventually contacting their relatives or the press? If you are planning to kill off these people, why not just fly them into the buildings in the first place? If that is the case, why bother with a missile? This theory is simply very expensive, requires the loyalty and cooperation of many people, and has a logistical issue of hiding at least one and up to four airplanes with passengers and crew. To even suggest this as a serious conspiracy is idiotic.

Instead, why not just rig the planes for remote control with a cutoff switch for plane to ground communications? This is a very cheap alternative (it's not like your paying for the planes) requires a very small number of people to carry out the task and does not even waste an expensive missile.

One reason the missile striking the Pentagon theory has persisted is because of the ‘lack’ of visible plane wreckage at the Pentagon. One of the conspiracy sites has pictures of plane crashes as examples of all the wreckage strewn all over. What they do not show you is a picture of the Valuejet crash in Florida. There was not much other than a hole. Do you see much wreckage in this picture of the Value Jet crash site?

As we all know, these clueless conspiracy theories are not limited to 9/11. There are many more including the theory that electronic voting machines were rigged to vote for Bush.

For a group that is paranoid, there are some real possible conspiracies that they seem to not be aware of. Take the "War on Drugs." The Republicans talk tough about fighting drugs, but somehow we are just not able to eradicate illegal drugs from the country. Perhaps they don't want to stop Americans from using drugs. Why? The simple explanation is that drug users are probably more likely to vote Democrat (partly due to their soft stance on drugs and willingness to support/forgive their use) but drug users are much less likely to actually go out and vote. So why rig voting machines and expose yourself to getting caught. Instead, just let the people who are planning to vote against you to get stoned, and fail to show up to vote. The end result is the same, and it is hard to prove a conspiracy then the conspiracy involves inaction as opposed to thousands of tampered machines laying around with rigged computer code.

Also:

Ever wonder why more cars do not use the ‘EasyPass’ electronic toll system in the Northeast? Well there is a theory that the Government uses the system to track your movements, so instead they pay tolls with cash to conceal their movements. This is a wasted activity as the cameras at the toll lanes can read your license plate. So it does not matter if you use the EasyPass or not, your car movements are being logged regardless.

The left is outraged that the NSA has a record of phone calls made and many believe that the Government is listening in on their conversations. I can’t even think what they could possibly be talking about to even care, not to mention the fact that so many people talk so loud on the phone that everyone in sight can listen in on their conversations, let alone even think how it would be possible for the Government to even attempt to listen in on everyone’s phone conversations. But what about tracking their location? Mobile phone networks are setup to be able to know the location of every phone connected to the network. So each day you are voluntarily carrying with you a Government tracking device. Are they actually tracking you? Probably not, but if a demonstration gets violent outside the White House, they might check to see whose phones were in the area in an attempt to match names with photos of protestors that they have.

Then there is the issue of no WMD in Iraq.

If the Bush Administration was willing to carry out all these conspiracies, why did they not bother to whip up some fake WMD in Iraq? (Really, what more needs to be said here?)

There is the theory that you need to wear a tinfoil hat to protect yourself from the mind control waves that the Administration is sending out. What I don't understand is what makes these people think that the aluminum foil that they are using to protect themselves has not been compromised by Big Business? After all, who is making this material? Who owns the companies that make this material? What makes you think that the CIA hasn’t arranged for tin foil to be manufactured in a way to actually amplify the signals that you are trying to avoid?

I can go on and on as the list of conspiracies is huge; Katrina response was slow on purpose, US vaccinations intentionally spread Aids or make recipients sterile. (Why not just give away condoms like the rest of the world wants us to?) But what’s the point since these conspiracy theories will somehow manage to live on and otherwise intelligent people will continue to believe in them. It makes me wonder if they are all just plain stupid.

After all, these conspiracies would require a cast of thousands!

Update: 7 July 2006
Thanks to Little Green Footballs, we have yet another example of moonbattery; a contributor to Democratic Underground did a 'scientific experiment' to 'prove' that the World Trade Center was not brought down by fire. Doing the experiment was idiotic enough, blogging about it is even worse. Then again, during that time he was too busy to be protesting somewhere. (Here is my favorite comment in the comment thread.)

See more:
Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 – AboveTopSecret
9/11: Debunking The Myths – Popular Mechanics
ValueJet Memorial
September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations - Purdue

6 comments:

The Untold Truth said...

Why, I guess most of them are communists, a few more of them are scared or insane, and the rest simply watch too much TV...

Anonymous said...

I don't know what to believe. I don't assume any view to be the absolute truth. I do doubt (having read as widely as possibly on the subject, and I will continue to read as manner different views as I can find) the view that 19 muslims with box cutters brought three buildings down in one day and defeated a multi-billion dollar intelligence apparatus.

Steven E. Jones, Brigham Young University physics professor : "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in... (the) buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic."

Read his paper here.
link -

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Dr Robert M Bowman, Luitenant Colonel, United States Air Force (retired), PhD in Aeronautics, former head of the US 'Star Wars' Missile Defence System, acknowledged expert on Nation Security :

"The (Military) exercises that went on that morning (September 11) simulating the exact kind of thing that was happening so confused the people in the FAA and NORAD....that they didn't know what was real and what was part of the exercise."

"I think the people who planned and carried out those exercises, they're the ones that should be the object of investigation."

Bowman's prime suspect? "If I had to narrow it down to one person....I think my prime suspect would be Dick Cheney."

"The 9/11 Commission omitted anything that might be the least bit suspicious or embarrassing or in any way detract from the official conspiracy, so it was a total whitewash."

"There needs to be a true investigation, not the kind of sham investigations we have had with the 9/11 omission and all the rest of that junk."

link -http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406mainsuspect.htm


Paul Craig Roberts, former Wall Street Journal editor; former Assistant of the Treasury during the President Ronald Reagan administration :

"Many patriotic readers have written to me expressing their frustration that fact and common sense cannot gain a toehold in a debate guided by hysteria and disinformation."

"They challenge me to explain why three World Trade Center buildings on one day collapsed into their own footprints at free fall speed, an event outside the laws of physics except under conditions of controlled demolition."

"There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations. We know the government lied about Iraqi WMD,...."

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006.html

Anonymous said...

Here's something you should watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9Wrnj8IBOI&search=twin%20towers

Fred Fry said...

Dear anonymous poster posting from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Are you really a student there are did you just sneak in for access to the internet?

"I do doubt the view that 19 muslims with box cutters brought three buildings down in one day and defeated a multi-billion dollar intelligence apparatus."

Stop for a second and think about the bull that you are presenting. It was not 19 men with box cutters that brought three building down. They hijacked 4 airplanes. They were able to do this on the first three because Americans were told to not act on their own as the belief was that they would be taken hostage and traded away for something. This is why only the last fight fought back because they had heard what was done with the other planes. It was the planes that brought down the buildings, not box cutters, nor explosives.

You did not bother to even attempt to address why problems with the conspiracy theories I pointed out, instead merely regurgitating the conspiracies like a good useful idiot that you are. So just WHY WOULD THEY PLANT EXPLOSIVES IN THE TWIN TOWERS WHY THEY PLANNED TO FLY A PLANE FULL OF FUEL INTO THE BUILDINGS?

Explain this.

You can also explain what happens to air inside the floor of a building when the floor above falls in on the space? That is the air being pushed out of the building that conspiracy theorist claim is evidence of explosives?

Then there is the problem that Osama bin Laden ADMITTED that they were behind 9/11. Then there was the USS COLE bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa, the 1993 Twin Tower bombing, as well as others. What kind of denial are you living in?


How about stating what you believe actually happened and we can go from there.

Also, who do you believe was behind the two London subway bombings? Are you one who believes that the UK Government duped some muslim kids into carrying backpacks full of explosives?

Don’t bother linking to any of the loose change crap. That ‘documentary’ has already been widely discredited and anyway, do you think I am some kind of idiot and YOU and going to be the one to enlighten me?

Wake up.

J Nash (no need to hide behind a fake name) said...

Wow. I actually feel like my I.Q. dropped after reading this. You poor people. I hope you all find a life instead of acting like children fighting over the last Twinkie.

Fred Fry said...

J Nash (no need to hide behind a fake name)

Nope, because you're hiding behind an initial.

I have a nice life thank you.