NewIndependenceParty.org

to: main page

Why Americans are Prone to Believe in Conspiracy Theories

 

Having tricked you into looking at this page by its title, I now disclose that the discussion here will be more about why people do not believe in conspiracy theories - the 9/11 one, in particular - than why they do believe in them.

Many stories in the large mainstream media approach this subject by psychoanalyzing the American public: What makes people want to believe in “far-fetched conspiracy theories”? I suppose that some individuals do have psychological quirks leading them in that direction. Maybe someone’s self-esteem is based on claiming to have inside information about high-level government agencies? Maybe, following Watergate and other such revelations, Americans are conditioned to mistrust their government?

I don’t know about other people. Let me just say that, in my own case, I have been brought slowly to my views. Over the years, I first came to believe that there might be something to theories of government security or intelligence involvement in the Kennedy assassination. So much testimony was coming out from so many different credible witnesses that it became clear that the Warren Commission explanation was either a coverup or flat-out wrong. (For instance, there was a week of solid programming on the History Channel on the 40th anniversary of JFK’s assassination suggesting alternative explanations.) I did not initially pay much attention to the conspiracy theories but came to believe them through the cumulative evidence that was presented. (See “why I believe in conspiracy theories.")

With respect to 9/11, I again paid little attention to rumors about a “conspiracy” involving U.S. government agencies until I learned that a third building - “Building Seven” - which had not been hit by an airplane also fell to the ground on September 11, 2001. I, like most, was fixed on the videotaped image of the two planes smashing into World Trade Center towers One and Two, followed by an hour-long period during which smoke billowed out of these buildings, and then a sudden collapse of both towers. The idea of cause and effort took root from these images: The buildings came down because aircraft had hit them and started fires.

Even so, something was not right. From a complete stand-still, both towers suddenly collapsed. They both fell completely to the ground, leaving only a small pile of rubble. The bulky towers had virtually disappeared, as if vaporized. I doubted that aircraft impact would have that effect. If fires caused the collapse as the 9/11 Commission report suggested, it seemed likely to me that one or two floors would first collapse near the place where the fires were burning, and then, perhaps, floors would collapse elsewhere until the whole structure came down. Even then, one would expect to see a pile of squashed floors like pancakes stacked upon each other that would reach high into the sky. Maybe one or another of the towers would start to tip over. Instead, both towers dropped to the ground in a matter of ten seconds. They both fell into their own foundation in exactly the same way. This was more than coincidence.

Subsequently, I read that jet-fuel fires burning in open air reach a maximum temperature of 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, but steel does not begin to melt until 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. That means that even if fires from the fuel of the aircraft raged for hours, the most they could do would be to soften the steel beams supporting each tower so that it might, at most, start to tip to one side.

Several weeks after 9/11, pools of molten steel were found in the sub-basement of the towers. How could fires at the top of the tower have caused these? Since jet-fuel fires are not hot enough to melt steel, something else must have created these pools. I read that explosives used in controlled demolitions, including nano-thermite chemicals, do melt steel. Researchers reported finding traces of nano-thermite in the rubble. Such chemicals would not normally be stored in office buildings. They would not have been carried in commercial airliners. They are used exclusively in controlled demolitions.

So it seemed to me that controlled demolitions were what brought the twin towers down and that aircraft hitting the towers gave cover to an alternative explanation. Yes, there were such aircraft hitting the buildings, but they did not cause the collapse. Controlled demolitions did. If we had controlled demolitions and aircraft hitting the buildings at roughly the same time, there must have been a “conspiracy” involving whoever hijacked or commandeered the plane and the persons who detonated the explosives with the permission of the building owner. Since it is U.S. government policy to send fighters to shoot down stray aircraft threatening our cities, the additional question is raised as to why the two aircraft that hit the twin towers were not intercepted before they could reach their target? Did someone in a high government position decide not to intercept the flights? If so, that adds a third party to the conspiracy - own own government.

To me, the collapse of Building Seven was a “slam dunk” case of conspiracy. The official explanation is that debris from the collapsing World Trade Center towers shot several hundred feet across the street to set some fires in offices there. If so, these fires in Building Seven would not have been nearly as severe as those in the twin towers. Start with the fact that, never in history, has an office building collapsed due to fires. We are asked to believe that on 9/11 three such events took place.

Next, there is the surprising fact that New York firefighters made no attempt to extinguish the fires in Building Seven (because officials were supposedly worried about their safety). There is the amazing report that New York mayor Rudy Guiliani told some people before this building collapsed that it would soon be coming down. There is even a televised statement from the building owner, Larry Silverstein, that he had agreed that the building should be “pulled” (which in construction jargon means brought down by controlled demolitions). One wonders why Building Seven was wired for demolition on the same day when the two aircraft hit the twin towers? Silverstein owned all three buildings. To say the least, isn’t something “fishy” here?

To answer the question why I believe in this "conspiracy theory": Common sense plus bits of information gained from reading articles and books convinced me that the official explanation was implausible. Controlled demolitions made much more sense. I let my beliefs follow the facts.

I try not to let just any alleged facts guide my thinking. To be believable, they must have certain characteristics. (1) The facts must be plausible in terms of my own experience. The proposed explanations must, on the surface, make sense. (2) The person disclosing the facts to me must be a credible source. He or she must have a generally good reputation for honesty. Just as important, the person must be in a position to know what is being communicated to me. (3) The facts would ideally come from several different sources. There would be corroborating evidence.

Let me give an example. Barbara Ellis, a member of Scholars for 9/11 truth, wrote: “Former president of Italy Francesco Cossiga told a major Rome daily in late November 2007 that it was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies that the Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad, Israel’s counterpart, had done the attacks to get Western powers to control Iraq and Afghanistan.”

It’s a shame that Ellis did not name the particular newspaper and the date of this statement although such information ought not be hard to find. However, the fact that the disclosure was made by a former President of Italy gives credibility to his assertion of fact. Only a current or former head of state would have complete access to information about national intelligence functions. Even if Italy was not directly in the loop, I am ready to believe that the western governments cooperate closely enough in intelligence functions that Italian intelligence would know generally what its counterparts were doing. Bottom line: Cossiga was in a position to know what he was saying.

Now let me move to the more important part of this discussion: why so many people refuse to believe that there was a conspiracy on 9/11.

I can understand their point of view. The 9/11 conspiracy theory requires one to accept the possibility that high-placed agents of the U.S. government - perhaps even the President and Vice President - may have been involved in a heinous plot that led directly to the deaths of almost 3,000 persons and, indirectly, to the many more casualties sustained in subsequent wars. Most Americans want to believe that their government is good. They don’t like people who are constantly criticizing our government or American institutions. So when a 9/11 truther wants to show them evidence that government officials were intimately involved in murderous acts, they refuse to look at the evidence. They simply don’t want to “go there”. Following facts to a logical conclusion might threaten their patriotic belief system. I can sympathize.

Another problem is that a conspiracy fitting the above facts would require secretive agreements between many different players. You have, as I said, the people who commandeered the planes, the people who set the explosives in the three buildings, and government officials who behaved strangely in disabling our air defenses and other acts. You have a coverup involving both the government and commercial news media. How could such a monstrous secret be kept by, say, several hundred people? In a society like ours, one would think that at least some of the conspirators would crack. Driven by love of country and a regard for truth, someone involved in the plot would tell the world what really happened on that fateful day.

Since no credible confession has yet been forthcoming, that in itself provides a certain assurance that there was no conspiracy other than among the nineteen accused hijackers directed by Osama bin Laden. But wait. We know that the Mafia and other para-military organizations are able effectively to enforce codes of silence through death threats and other intimidation. We know that the C.I.A. has engaged in violent acts abroad to protect supposed U.S. interests. The capacity is there to pull off crimes of this sort. One would hope that our elected officials, being generally honest people, would have knowledge of the nation’s intelligence and security apparatus and be able to control it. Certainly the President would be in that position. If, however, President Kennedy could be shot and killed in a public place, this could happen to anyone who bucks the conspirators or reveals the truth about them. Even if President Obama wanted to spill the beans on 9/11, he may not feel safe in doing so.

Another possibility is that people who knew the truth may have “cracked”. Maybe Larry Silverstein cracked when he remarked that Building Seven had been “pulled”. He is a professional real-estate developer, not an actor, and may have found it difficult to keep up the required facade of lies at all times. Maybe U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, cracked (or was not privvy to the conspiracy) when he disclosed that around 9:20 a.m. he heard a young man three times ask Vice President Cheney in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center “Do the orders still stand?” as reports of incoming rogue aircraft were being received. The 9/11 commission report maintains that the Vice President arrived at the command center around 10: 00 a.m. - too late to do much about these reports. The clear inference is that the young man was asking Cheney whether the orders still stood not to shoot down the planes. Cheney had said that, yes, the orders still stood.

The salient fact in both cases is not that contradictory information has not surfaced but that the media have refused to report it. Or, when such information is reported, it is done so briefly so as not to sink into public consciousness. If Woodward and Bernstein had run with the story of Norman Mineta’s experiences in the bunker as they ran with the story of financing the Watergate burglars, it is probable that the official explanations of 9/11 would now be totally discredited. (Instead, Washington Post editorials ferociously attack persons, such as a member of the Japanese Diet, who ask for new investigations of 9/11.) The media have revealed few facts about 9/11 other than what supports the official story. For instance, few Americans know that a third building - Building Seven - also fell on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission report did not mention this late-afternoon event and the news media declined to follow the story. The corporate media are surprisingly monolithic in regards to reporting certain kinds of situations.

Finally, it may be that some well-intentioned persons know that the official explanations of 9/11 are untrue but nevertheless feel it is necessary to maintain a fiction to protect our national reputation and security. After all, the idea that Islamic extremists conducted the attacks justified the the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What would the world community think of the United States government now if it were authoritatively established that the airplane attacks were a cover for controlled demolitions? Would not that remove the justification for continuing a war in Afghanistan? Would it not encourage Al Qaeda to attack our us even more? To say the least, our nation would have egg on its face.

This is a situation which anyone living a lie must face. Maybe there are immediate practical advantages, but in the end truth will out. If it were up to me, I would make a full disclosure, blame everything on Cheney and Bush, and move on. There’s no need to punish those two gentlemen - heck, I’d put them both up for life in posh hotels - but there is a need for truth. I would think it would actually make Americans safer if we got out of the business of conducting wars in other people’s countries and made peace with the Islamic world as best we could. Certainly, that would improve our budgetary situation. Remaining a great world power (or empire) does not mean that much to me. In the long run, America’s reputation would be enhanced, not diminished, if we came clean about 9/11 and, on our own, told the truth.

Is, however, my suggested version of the truth really the truth? I recently had the opportunity to pitch my “9/11 conspiracy theories” to two highly intelligent individuals, one a Chinese professor of chemistry living in Beijing and the other a Polish-born computer-software analyst living in the United States. In the end, both declined to accept my theory - and for similar reasons.

When I explained to the Chinese professor that a third building, Building Seven, had also fallen to the ground even though no airplane had struck it, he seemed intrigued by what I was saying. (He had not known about this.) When I mentioned that a single developer owned all three buildings, that this developer had purchased the twin-towers six weeks earlier, and that he had collected $4.5 billion from insurance companies, the man’s eyes opened wide in amazement. But when I then revealed that one of President Bush’s relatives managed the firm that provided security to that developer’s buildings, I lost him. The professor suddenly shut down. “How do I know that any of this is true?,” he asked. My story was so fantastic that it could not be believed or, at least, be taken at face value. The computer-software analyst had the same reaction.

These men were right to doubt my story. I will admit that much of the information is second- or third-hand. I know about the melting point of steel, the presence of nano-thermite in the rubble, the subterranean pools of molten steel, and indeed Building Seven itself from having read about them in articles and books written by 9/11 truthers. I know very little first hand. What is needed is for some well-respected, impartial group of experts to take a thorough look at all the information gathered about 9/11 and decide what is or is not the truth. The average citizen does not have the time or expertise to do that.

Normally one would expect a government-sponsored commission to decide matters of this sort, but the 9/11 Commission, like the Warren Commission before it, is widely perceived to have engaged in a coverup. We are into the era of government propaganda. If not a government panel, then the major news media ought to have undertaken a thorough investigation of 9/11-related evidence. They have not done that. There is no way to force the commercial media to tell the truth if top decisionmakers in those institutions have decided not to so so. That avenue is blocked.

What is left is the possibility of a court trial that thoroughly reviews evidence and reaches a verdict. It is my hope that a Minnesota Attorney General will initiate a lawsuit involving 9/11 participants and the truth will come out in that way.

back to: main page

COPYRIGHT 2010 Thistlerose Publications - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
http:/newindependenceparty.org/believe911.html