E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Reflections on 9/11 "truth"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Note: I originally posted this on September 12, 2007.

   
Six years ago yesterday, fewer than two dozen men managed to change the world. I'm not going to bore you with another retrospective on September 11 like the ones on every other news web site and blog out there. Anyway, I've already done one of those. What I find interesting, six years later, is the movement for 9/11 "truth." There was a presentation downtown on Monday where speakers peddled conspiracy theories about what really happened on September 11. (See reports from the Herald-Times and the Indiana Daily Student.)

Some of this is the result of what some conservative commentators have called Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), an intense and irrational hatred of President Bush leading people to believe anything that casts the President in a negative light. BDS is closely related to Clinton Derangement Syndrome, which brought forth "theories" about how the federal government was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995.

Without getting into a discussion of the evidence and documentation presented by the "9/11 Truth" crowd, let's examine for a moment the basic premise of the movement. The President of the United States (or someone at a high level in the administration) intentionally murdered 3,000 people, destroyed the World Trade Center, severely damaged the Pentagon, and crashed four commercial airlines in order to start two wars with Iraq and Afghanistan.

I understand that any President will have critics and those who will vehemently oppose him. I understand that any President will have people who believe his motives are less than honorable in the policies he advocates and positions he takes. I was very critical of the previous President and I believe his tenure was very destructive for our country. I have often referred to the former occupant of the White House as "disgraced ex-President Clinton." As immoral as I think Clinton was, though, I do not believe that he was part of a conspiracy to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City.

Do the people who believe these 9/11 conspiracy theories truly believe that the President of the United States is so evil that he would be part of the worst terrorist attack ever committed on American soil? In order to believe that President Bush was involved in taking down the towers, you have to believe one of two things: that the President planned the terrorist attacks with Osama bin Laden, or that the President knew about the attacks in advance and planned to opportunistically destroy the WTC when Al Qaeda struck on September 11.

In order to believe that the President was involved in September 11, you further have to believe that the administration has somehow managed to hold together a large conspiracy theory for the past six years, with no one accidentally spilling the beans or blowing the whistle. Could a conspiracy as large and complicated as would be required to pull off a planned demolition of the World Trade Center manage to hold together without leaks for this long? Could a federal government that could not competently get aid to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (to say nothing of other examples of federal incompetence) somehow hold it together in this case?

And for what purpose would the President engage in such a monstrous act? A woman at the Buskirk-Chumley presentation told the H-T that "Somebody is getting rich off this war at the expense of many lives". Does she truly believe that the President of the United States would participate in mass murder in order to help supporters, campaign contributors or friends "get rich"? Even if we accept the premise that the President wanted a pretext for war, isn't there a much less complicated and less risky way to do it? Why not simply allow the terrorists to strike, instead of actively aiding them with a "controlled demolition"?

Any major event like September 11 will be a source of controversy. The fact that we allowed 19 men with box cutters to use our transportation infrastructure to commit this atrocity strikes deep into our sense of security and, to some extent, our national pride. There certainly could have been more done to prevent the attacks in the years leading up to it. But it was not a wild conspiracy, it was an act of terrorism that showed how dangerous Muslim fanatics can be.

I am thankful for the presentation on Monday night, because it showed how great this country is. We had people suggesting that the President of the United States committed mass murder of American civilians and aided a sworn enemy's attack on us. We had people suggesting that the President of the United States committed treason both in levying war against our country and providing aid and comfort to our enemies. Would citizens of many other countries have this freedom?


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Comments: