9/11 Conspiracy Theories

The Americans love a good conspiracy theory. It's been their major export for some decades now, so when the 9/11 attacks occurred the cynical could have placed safe bets on the emergence of a fresh series of conspiracy theories about the events of that terrible day. I'm not going to try to answer all the hair-brained stuff that's come to light from dark corners of the internet - that has been done much more comprehensively and expertly than I could do, but I do want to talk about some of the things the conspiracy theorists have right and wrong.

The origin of conspiracy
I think the conspiracy theories are very significantly influenced by the convenience that the attacks afforded the US government, particularly Dick Chainey. In all times of great tragedy there are those that abuse it for gains in power or status or money, or all of the above. Those that capitalise on the events for personal gain are perfect fodder for the conspiracy theorists' delusions - after all, the gains are great, so they had motive to cause these events. In the case of 9/11 the invasion of Iraq is particularly glaring. To this day I don't know the motivation for doing it. By comparison, invading Afghanistan was perfectly logical (Bin Laden was a Saudi) and a measured response (more than 8000 civilians dead and counting) to the 9/11 attacks. I can only assume that it was galling that in 1991 they couldn't actually invade and they wanted to make up for it, combined with a perceived need for the oil security. If so, it's just about the most expensive oil ever bought, since it has cost at least $3 trillion, which is short to write but it's a truly catastrophic amount of money, and if anything it's a gross underestimate since many fine young men have suffered severe and permanent physical and mental trauma, and of course a fair number have been killed in action.

Leaving aside the legitimacy and pointfullness of the war, though, it's a great "motive" for the 9/11 theorists to cite. Apparently the desire by some to go to war was so extreme that they would go to enormous lengths to make it happen, even orchestrating a terrorist attack. Here follows some conspiracy theories and my generalised rebuttal.

Controlled demolition
For me, this one pretty much takes the cake in terms of implausibility. The American government secretly wired a building in the middle of their greatest city with explosives? The explosives were not set off by the massive shock of a heavy jet hitting them and the resultant jet-fuel fireball? And they worked perfectly, just at the moment the towers were starting to fall?
and someone was watching, waiting for the perfect moment to set them off even though the buildings might easily have collapsed anyway? This gets a full 5/5 flying saucers. There are some outstanding facts that are hard to explain for the "conventional" school (i.e., the buildings came down because they were hit by heavy jets and exposed to extensive, raging fires) but 9/11 is a unique event, so there are bound to be some facts that are hard to understand. A mysterious fountain of sparks that looks suspiciously like thermite is one example. Unfortunately quite a few "experts" have gone on record as saying that it was controlled demolition. I'm all for academic freedom, but these guys are missing a trick: THE BUILDINGS WERE HIT BY HEAVY JETS. Stress concentration is one thing I see not mentioned by any structural or materials engineer who goes for the controlled demolition theory. When combined with fire, it's obvious to me why these buildings failed while no other steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire. A significant amount of the supporting structure had been wiped out asymmetrically. This would seem to cause a torque on the whole building around where the plane hit, and combined with the effect of heat lowering the yield stress of steel ... like I said, obvious.

Aircraft autopiloted into WTC
This is as daft possibly even dafter than the one above. The terrorists were in the cockpit. They had taken flying lessons. We have lots of documentary evidence for both of those facts. So why is it that someone would insist the planes were guided into the WTC by their autopilots which had been remote programmed? I'm not saying this is impossible, but on a scale of 1 to 5 UFOs it gets 4.5 for sheer brain shutdown.

United 93 was quickly removed/shot down by missile
This is one the conspiracy theorists have right. The wreckage from United 93 was removed very fast - at the moment of impact, in fact. By an enormous jet fuel fireball. The circumstances of its crash were unlike most aircraft crashes. Most aircraft crashes that happen on land are what you might call a severely botched landing. The pilots try to land or mitigate the crash so lose altitude slowly if possible and come in parallel to the ground. Tragically, the evident struggle in the cockpit of that plane caused the controls to be manipulated in such a way that the plane made a hard right bank - I'm guessing a rudder hard-over, which would be consistent with someone kicking indescriminately if they were struggling - and then went nose first into the ground. Such an impact is unusual in that there is a lot of force acting directly on the airframe, causing it to shatter into much smaller pieces than normal. The concomitant fireball would send these pieces right out of the park. The sheer number of witness accounts make this one a fairly watertight case so I give it 4.5 crop circles out of five.

In a sense all of these conspiracy theories are the same. It's always the government or "they" - forces within the government - that is doing it to its own people. And in a sense they have it right - all governments do terrible things to their own people, especially in this current age of unprecedented power over their people. But conspiracy theorists also miss the point. Airing conspiracies with house of cards levels of documentation is not going to convince people en masse - indeed, a lot of sites propound a whole swathe of conspiracy theories, some legitimate concerns, and others complete bunkum, and in doing this play into the hands of any forces that genuinley want to keep certain information out of public eye. The best place for a true conspiracy is among half a dosen fakes. That way no one with an ounce of common sense is going to believe any of it. In that way there is conspiracy hegemony: either you believe all the conspiracies (if you have taken leave of your senses) or you believe none. To give serious thought to any conspiracy automatically moves you in to the conspiracy camp and gives your word the same weight as someone who still believes in aliens, so few people would do it.

Conspiracy theorists' credibility problem derives from their ignorance of Ockham's razor and Hanlon's razor. Combine this with sources that themselves are not credible (some have reasonably scientific methods but also point to other conspiracy sites or known conspiracists) and cherry-picking of evidence, and you have total loss of credibility. The only difference between an investigative journalist and a conspiracist is that one is a lot more rigorous. In short, conspiracists suffer from insufficient skepticism and rigor. Until and unless they get their act together there's little chance that any genuinely concerning things they report will ever become known before it's too late to do anything about them.

The other major problem with all of these conspiracy theories is they fail to draw attention to the civil liberties that were considered basic human rights before the attacks but have since been eroded or destroyed. New powers were granted the government, just as new powers were granted Hitler during crises, and these powers were mostly used to repress ordinary citizens, although the rhetoric was about protecting the public from sleeper terrorists and the like.

I always cringed when Bush said something like, "They hate us for our freedoms." From day one I knew that couldn't possibly be true. No one attacks someone else just because they have more liberty. The reasons for the attack are complicated no doubt, but they tend to boil down to a reaction to American imperialism. Speaking of liberty in this way debases it by making it a pretext for treading on the liberties of foreigners in the middle east and the people at home. Governments around the world have proved that Bush's retoric has a place: we the free people can say of most governments that, "They hate us for our freedoms."

When you're tired of learning to drive, you're tired of life

After eight years of study in any particular field, it is assumed that you will pretty much be an expert. Even an amateur spending one to two hours a day on something will become extremely knowledgeable in short order. So why is it that most people's driving is so bad? The obvious explanation is that practice does not make perfect unless you have a coach. People drive all the time but since they have no goal for improving their driving it does not significantly improve after they've learned more or less what all the levers do. I see no reason to flatline (haha) my probability of accident so I look into this now and again to refresh myself. One of my favourite sites is Safe Speed which, apart from having a lot of information about why speed cameras are bad, also gives really solid tips for advancing in your driving generally.

The reason I feel called to write upon this most vexing subject is a recent reminder of what happened to a hapless motorist in 2009 when on the motorway his cruise control got stuck on. The police were eventually called in to clear a lane for him while he battled to regain control. What a way to catch a plane if you're running late! Joking aside, I immediately became suspicious of the whole affair because I can think of at least three ways to stop a car with the cruise jammed on. So, in the interests of public safety I will deal with the cruise-jammed-on scenario and then the brakes-have-failed scenario which, let's face it, could actually happen to you. The cruise control episode was pretty much a once off for civilisation as a whole.

Cruise stuck on

1. The brake pedal. Yeah I know it's obvious but would you believe it, he tried the brake pedal and nothing happened! Could this have been because the cruise control will increase throttle to maintain speed? Yeah it's that obvious. So nothing appeared to happen even when vigorously braking. Only when the brake pedal was pressed hard enough to overcome the engine's torque did the car slow down, and in fact this is what ultimately brought the episode to an end.

. The clutch pedal. OK I know most people drive automatics these days, but there are manuals with cruise and it would be easy to just declutch to prevent drive from going to the wheels. And speaking of which ...

3. Neutral/park. Most automatic gearboxes are still in control of the driver. You can change down or perhaps even to neutral. Worst case scenario is the engine revs a little too high but that's what you have a limiter for.

4. Ignition. Turn it off. The report says he tried this but it wouldn't work. It is clear, however, that he was so incoherent with panic that the obvious things I've mentioned didn't occur to him, or when he tried them they appeared not to work. Still, a really easy solution to cruise getting away from you.

5. Handbrake. Won't work, not by itself. The main brakes on a car are easily capable of countering the engine, especially in top gear, but the handbrake cannot. Don't try it unless there is literally no other option but to die.

No brakes

1. Most important thing here is not to panic. I don't mean to be confronting, but in emergencies panickers die.

2. You'll want to remove drive, so let off the accelerator, duh. Further steps you can take to slow down faster are to gear down as much as physically possible. This is particularly essential if the failure happens on a downhill slope. Do not put the car in neutral, that will perevent engine braking.

3. Brake failures are various. Try pumping the pedal, applying both feet. Sometimes the brakes will be cooked, meaning they are less effective because they've overheated. Worst is if the brakes have failed completely, leaving your only stopping power with the engine and handbrake. Speaking of which ...

4. Do not yank the handbrake. You will lock up the rear tyres and spin right into a fireball. There won't even be anything left to bury. Gradually apply pressure and if you feel the rear of the car letting go, release the handbrake. Hence, keep your thumb on the button or you may panic and just let go, leaving it ratcheted up.

5. If none of the above will stop you, hard cornering can also slow you down but again you have to limit yourself to the handling envelope.

6. Drive up a hill. Simple and obvious. Don't make the mistake of getting to a stop then rolling back down again. As you come to a stop, turn across the hill so your car is no longer on a slope in the direction of roll.

7. Run off the road. In rural areas this one will be obvious, but then maybe you'd have enough road to coast to a gentle stop, whatever. A handy field full of soggy grass will slow you down a treat, as would sand for those times when your brakes fail next to the beach.

8. Depending on the situation, you may be forced to crash into something. If that is the case, after having done all the above to slow as much as possible, select a hedge, a stand of saplings, perhaps even another car, to rapidly wash off the rest of your speed. You can even select quite solid obstacles as long as you're doing less than 40 km/h. If a tree is the only thing suitable, use the tree, but try not to hit it head on unless you have passengers. You can slow the impact by striking it with the far corner of the car, thus converting some of your forward momentum into angular momentum. Obiously don't do that if you would then career off a cliff.

9. You thought crashing was the last ditch, right? Actually if you have enough space you can try something even more dangerous - a spin. This is also the only remaining option if you're going too fast to crash safely. Use the handbrake to lock the rear wheels, then violently turn the wheel to induce a spin. This will be similar to attempting a fully locked up stop. Keep the steering wheel at full lock until you've slowed down enough, otherwise you may end up going backwards into whatever you were trying to avoid. The reason this is more dangerous than crashing is because you cannot control it - you may crash into something driver door first.


So there you have it. What to do if your brakes one day decide to give up the ghost when you need them most. Once again there is an obvious point on which to close: an ounce of prevention is worth The Monster Bomb of cures. Proper maintenance is the first part of safety. Other than that, don't overheat your brakes on a long downhill - use pulsed braking (also known as not riding the brakes) and engine braking. Got that?

In reply to the Angry Exile

The recent proposals of one Nadine Dorries is causing some action on the blogosphere and naturally because the issue is abortion it is quite a divisive one. It seems the general libertarian thought on abortion leans towards pro-choice rather than pro-life. I commented on the Angry Exile's blog that I found this incongruous because it is promoting the liberty of one at the expense of another's life. In response he wrote a fairly epic post about his thoughts on the matter and I thought I might as well reply here rather than post a really long comment. This is naturally a very emotional topic, but I'm going to try to be objective and dispassionate because although passion is important and useful in persuasion, the abortion debate has had been rich in passion but not as rich in objective criticism.

Imagining for the moment that there were no abortion laws and assuming that the woman’s own life was not in danger and that it was simply a lifestyle choice to abort very late – say 35 weeks or so – it’d be hard to see it as anything other than murder for one's own gain, arguably the most severe and permanent infringement of an individual's liberty that there is. However, at the other end of the process – around the time a morning after pill is used, for instance – it may be no more preventing a small number of undifferentiated cells from plugging themselves into the uterine wall in about a week's time.

This is the point where my views begin to diverge from his. I agree that late stage abortion has no real difference from killing a newborn, but I seriously question the assertion that the fertilised ovum is anything other than a unique human being with their own life that cannot be justly brought to an end.

At one end there is definitely a someone, and like any other someone objectively his or her life has value. At the other end is a something, and while it’s something I’d value almost as much I can’t deny that that’s subjective. In between those two extremes is a large area that's increasingly grey around the middle.

This grey area is almost at the heart of the matter. The real problem here is continuity. Where is the point between embryo and baby where you can definitely say that is where the transition occurred? Is it when the first brain cell develops? The first heartbeat? Something that is "looking human"? I have come to the conclusion that this question has no meaning. There is no definable point between embryo and baby where you can say, right, from this moment forward we have a human being. Do you want a simple and categorical change in the nature of the being? Well, I can point to one: conception. At conception we go from being two haploid cells with no innate ability to divide and live to a single diploid cell with utterly unique DNA and, assuming conception did not occur in vitro and notwithstanding unlucky circumstance, the potential to grow into an adult human.

And here we run into another problem - most become nothing at all. Though I first learned this at school I’m not sure it’s widely known, but the majority of pregnancies fail and the majority of those that fail will fail early, i.e. in the first trimester. ... So it seems hard to assume that very early embryos/pre-embryos have rights to the uterus because of what they may become when sadly it's quite likely that they'll become a slightly heavier than normal menstrual flow and perhaps worse than usual cramps.

This is informative but it doesn't really affect the issue. Percentage chance of continuing life is no measure of the value of a life. In earlier centruries it was common for more than 50% of your children to die before adulthood. I don't think any sane person would venture to suggest that gave the parents decisional right to whether to raise them or not.

We can go further still and consider that those cells are almost entirely the woman’s own material except for the tiny component which is the single sperm that got into the ovum, and anyone who’s ever finished off a round of horizontal tango and found that the condom broke will know that that sperm cell may not necessarily have had an invite.

Once again, I have to say this does not fundamentally affect the issue. Any human is home to far more bacteria than their own cells, as is every full grown foetus no match for the number of cells of the woman carrying it. For these reasons I don't consider the situation of the newly fertilised egg to have any bearing on its uniqueness or life.

... do those cells get rights because the woman willingly took part in an enjoyable activity which admitted other cells into her body, one of which resulted in her becoming pregnant? It's tempting to think active participation makes it so ...

Very tempting - in fact I believe it does. Any sexual encounter is associated with a probability of pregnancy occurring as a result, except of course for those who are infertile for any reason. No matter how many measures of contraception are used they may all fail. Everyone who consents to intercourse knows this, and therefore accepts that pregnancy is a possible outcome. I'm not sure many people know this but that is the fundamental reason for laws regarding consent. I don't mean to discount the psychological damage that can happen when there is no consent (rape, in case you missed it), but at their heart the laws of consent recognise that both parties have a responsibility for the results of their actions, and one possible result is pregnancy. To accept the possibility of pregnancy at first and then turn and claim that the pregnancy is unwanted is foolhardy. If pregnancy is to be avoided, sex must be avoided.

Libertarianism, at least the way I see it, is both freedom and responsibility. The choice to end a pregnancy, whatever my personal feelings on the matter, is about a woman’s freedom and ownership of her own body to begin with and, if she doesn’t want to be pregnant, about her responsibility to exercise her choice long before the stage at which she’s also responsible for a human life within her.

Libertarians are fond of returning responsibility to the individual. I am taking that to its logical end - if two people consent to having sex they must both be willing to accept and care for a child that may result. That means abortion is not an option, at the very least not as after-the-fact contraception.

That's all I want to say for now about the reasons why I believe that in general abortion is not to be considered as after-the-fact contraception. I am going to venture from the sure foundation of logic and reason into the trecherous territory of morality and ethics.

Consider a hypothetical situation: let's say a woman has a loving husband, has the means to support a child, and wants to have a child. Would she get an abortion? I ask because it seems obvious but I don't know whether people recognise that if all women who were "sexually active" were in that situation, abortion would not be necessary. From what I've gathered over the years most women who resort to abortion are not just ice queens who have no regard for the life of their own children. It is typically the type of action to which one is driven by circumstance - like stealing food if you are about to starve. Shame, avoiding an "honour killing", the will of the father, these things are real and serious social issues and I can well understand the mind of someone who is driven to abort a child because they would suffer great persecution, even death, if people found out.

So I am not saying that I don't have sympathy for women who have ended up in these very difficult situations. In nearly all cases though, if abortion is the cure, the disease is preferable.

Not that I am calling pregnancy a disease, you understand. In fact, the acceptance of abortion in our culture is, I strongly believe, in part resultant from the change in how children are seen. In the past children were seen as a blessing, a gift. In modern times it seems a lot of people view them as a financial burden that restricts your own freedom to travel or do whatever. The very concept of an unwanted pregnancy is partially resultant from this view which is tremendously damaging to society. Think of my hypothetical situation before: the woman wants a child and has the means to bring one into the world, so why would she even consider aborting?

Another reason for the prevalence of abortion in our society is the prevalence of those conditions that will put women in these very difficult situations. "Casual" sex, particularly, can be blamed here, but so can all sex that happens outside marriage generally. Would a woman have shame for getting pregnant when she's married to the father? Would her male partner demand an abortion if they are financially stable and they both want a child?

Those extremely difficult situations that lead a woman to consider abortion are nearly all avoidable. You cannot get pregnant if you do not have sex (don't comment about IVF - I know and so do you, and you know I know). Abstinence is simple and obvious, but it's not easy. I may write further on that topic in the future.