Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
But Have You Tried Knocking Down a Skyscraper Yourself?
As a guy who has never personally attempted to fire a Mannlicher-Carcano three times in eight seconds or blow up 4,800 pounds of ammonium nitrate, sometimes I've just got to rely on supposedly expert opinion on whether certain things are impossibly suspicious or just unusual. So I enjoyed this Popular Mechanics article that pulls together some wise expert counsel to debunk some popular 9/11 conspiracy theories. The PM wise men come to the conclusions that the twin towers were hit by passenger planes, that did not have "military pods" attached, and that the visual appearance of the fall did not require planted explosives, and that it was indeed hot enough for the steel constituting the towers' structures to buckle and collapse (though not melt). Useful fodder for cocktail party arguments over such chatter as, is our government indeed run by Satanic reptiles? (Current evidence indicates a cautious "not likely.")
[Link via Instapundit.]
|2.14.05 @ 4:46PM|#
Your last comment causes me to believe that you are unfamiliar with the Bohemian Grove ceremonies.
|2.14.05 @ 4:59PM|#
The wildest is the "bumble planes" theory, which holds that
passengers from Flights 11, 175 and 77 were loaded onto Flight 93
so the U.S. government could kill them.(from P7 of the
article.)
I've heard a lot of the 9/11 theories but that's a brand new one
for me.
Conspiracy theories are usually an interesting mix of untruths,
half-truths, irelevant truths and leaps of logic. Some are amusing,
but usually it's depressing to watch someone who truly believes the
most outlandish ones.
|2.14.05 @ 5:10PM|#
Conspiracy theories are usually an interesting mix of
untruths, half-truths, irelevant truths and leaps of
logic.
Actually I originally came up with that to describe Michael Moore's
films. :)
|2.14.05 @ 5:13PM|#
I do appreciate the red herring of debunking the myths some 3.5 years after the fact, but what's with the "supposed"-modifier before "expert"? I mean, I don't take anybody's word on face value either (nor do I expect that of most Reason readers), but it seems like the usage here is determinedly more pejorative. If I didn't know better, it almost sounds like you're putting the debunking on the same credibility level as the myths themselves. Then again, I just might believe in some other conspiracies...
|2.14.05 @ 5:18PM|#
Someone I know claimed that the WTC was blown up with explosives in the basement. I replied: 1) everybody saw the towers fall from the upper floors down, and 2) if someone was going to blow up the towers with explosives in the basement, why bother coordinating it with airplane hijackings that might or might not be successful? I mean, if you're blaming it on terrorists anyway, why make the plan overly complicated? He had no response.
|2.14.05 @ 5:36PM|#
"why make the plan overly complicated"
because that is the heart and soul of the david icke/alex jones
continuum. everything must be very, very, very complicated.
|2.14.05 @ 5:39PM|#
As a guy who has never personally attempted to fire a
Mannlicher-Carcano three times in eight seconds or blow up 4,800
pounds of ammonium nitrate...
No wonder you think Burning Man is cool.
How many fucking pictures of the planes does it take? How many
eyewitnesses?
Useful fodder for cocktail party arguments...
Arguments? People get killed for less.
|2.14.05 @ 5:59PM|#
I was unaware that Popular Mechanics was part of the Jewish cabal. Thanks for the heads-up.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.14.05 @ 6:08PM|#
I have one of those rifles (the 7.35mm version rather than the
6.5mm fired by Oswald). However, they are otherwise identical and
you would be hard pressed to fire three rounds in 8 seconds (it's
bolt action for gawd's sake).
However, in the right hands it could be done (as noted in the
report) and if Oswald's rifle was anything like mine it would have
been exceptionally accurate. Then again, maybe mine is accurate
because of all that work my grandfather put into it.
More than you really wanted to know regards,
TWC
|2.14.05 @ 6:19PM|#
What astounds me is the amount of time people put into the
conspiracy thing. I always say, if you are going to say something
moronic, don't spend too much time ... just spit it out.
I can't stand all the fake 'ah ha!' moments. It is a peeve.
"Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left."
Hey, ding dong! The car was moving forward, and he didn't get hit
with a right cross, he got hit with a bullet! AARRGGHH!
Dan H.|2.14.05 @ 7:06PM|#
I have one of those rifles (the 7.35mm version rather than the
6.5mm fired by Oswald). However, they are otherwise identical and
you would be hard pressed to fire three rounds in 8 seconds (it's
bolt action for gawd's sake).
Don't forget, the clock starts AFTER the first bullet is fired - a
simple fact many conspiracy theorists overlook. So really, you have
8 seconds to fire two more bullets. Not really that hard,
especially when firing at a slow-moving target through a scope,
only a couple of hundred feet away, from an elevated position.
The Lonewacko Blog|2.14.05 @ 8:03PM|#
Carlos Hathcock - famous Vietnam-era sniper - tried to duplicate LHO's feat and failed.
|2.14.05 @ 8:33PM|#
Lonewacko,
That's because Carlos was trained for precision, not speed.
I can get all 6 rounds out in 8 seconds. You use your left hand to
operate the bolt. And we're not talking great distances here -- 143
feet. I can hit at that distance with my 1911.
|2.14.05 @ 8:33PM|#
Carlos Hathcock - famous Vietnam-era sniper - tried to
duplicate LHO's feat and failed.
The last I read, that and other tests were flawed in that the
eight(?) second countdown should have begun after the firing of the
first shot.
|2.14.05 @ 8:33PM|#
In Mortal Error, published in 1992, Bonar Menninger claims that
Kennedy was killed by Hickey. He claimed that after the first shot,
he stood up and lost his balance, and accidentally discharging his
gun into the back of Kennedy�s head.
The book was based on the following evidence: (1) S. M. Holland saw
Hickey lose his balance when he stood up during the firing; (2)
AR-15 rounds are encased in thin copper and tend to break up upon
impact, as did the shot that struck John F. Kennedy in the head;
(3) A Mannliher-Carcano bullet would not break up when it hit a
target; (4) Ralph Yarborough and other witnesses smelled gunpowder
soon after the shooting, indicating that at least one shot had been
fired from street level; (5) Two witnesses, Austin Miller and Royce
Skelton, thought one of the shots came from near the presidential
limousine and (6) Howard Donahue argued that the bullet's
trajectory that hit Kennedy in the head suggested it came from
Hickey's gun.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhickey.htm
|2.14.05 @ 9:02PM|#
I'm on a mailing list where a great uproar erupted over the
conspiracy theories. Most of the uproar had to do with the fact
that the conspiracy theories were completely off-topic. See, the
mailing list is actually devoted to the mathematical study of
alternative election methods. There's a good website on the subject
that, until recently, was the result of a collaboration between 2
guys. One is incredibly far to the right (but insists that he's a
libertarian), the other is incredibly far to the left (but insists
that he's mainstream).
Eventually, their collaboration melted down after they completely
lost all respect for each other. One of them thinks that the WTC
was "possibly" rigged to explode, and the other one thinks that
evolution is "probably" wrong. (I put in the qualifiers because
neither guy will actually admit to embracing a kooky theory, but
both insist that these theories should at least not be ruled
out.)
Anyway, rather than sending a simple message to the list saying
that they are no longer collaborating on their web site, they had
to explain why the other guy is a kook.
And I think they did an excellent job of it. I'm now convinced that
they're BOTH kooks!
|2.14.05 @ 11:10PM|#
Notice that there are seven letters in the word "Popular" and
nine letters in the word "Mechanics." Add two to both numbers, and
you get 7+2=9 and 9+2=11. Thus, 9/11. The magazine was in on this
plot for years, so of course they will try to "debunk" the
conspiracy theories!
The moon landings were fake, too. And Elvis is currently a Wal-Mart
manager in Baton Rouge.
|2.14.05 @ 11:14PM|#
I personally think the whole 9/11 thing was done by oil
companies, for the express purpose of raising oil prices and
thereby profits. Oil companies also fed false intel to Bush on Iraq
for the same purpose.
See, there's a reason for everything in the whole wide world. You
just have to think about it for a minute.
conspiracy theory: a psychological mechanism for creating a sense
of self-importance, in a void where no such sense had previously
existed.
|2.15.05 @ 2:05AM|#
Dennis Miller once said about conspiracies that there is no
conspiracy. Nobody is out to get you, nobody even gives a shit if
you live or die.
Feel better?
|2.15.05 @ 8:30AM|#
That's a mildly amusing quote, slightly perceptive. Odd to think that the guy who said it has fallen so far, slumped down to doing plugs for bargain-basement dialup ISP's and spouting the GOP line du'jour.
|2.15.05 @ 10:27AM|#
I think government encourages conspiracy theories. It gives the
impression government is capable of James Bond activities, instead
of the Keystone Kops implementation that actually results. Just
look to Waco or Ruby Ridge to see how poorly government action
works.
But I also dislike using the term "conspiracy" to discredit people.
No one uses the term conspiracy for collaborations to do good, only
evil. Since people work in government to increase personal power
over others, and government is unaccountable, then these people
working towards their mutual goals appears, to outside viewers,
tantamount to a conspiracy.
Maybe conspiracy best describes government action in general?
|2.15.05 @ 11:20AM|#
Au contraire, Ayatollah! The heroes of Babylon 5 composed a "Conspiracy of Light"!
|2.15.05 @ 4:34PM|#
"I think government encourages conspiracy theories."
have you ever had the experience of saying this to a true believer?
you feel badly, afterwards, for taking a shit upon their pristine
lawn of connectedness. it does, however, make sense - i would want
to continue to engender a sense of government infallibility.
personally, i blame the way history is taught in american schools,
all linear and FDR-worshippy. :)
|2.15.05 @ 4:43PM|#
um, make that "i would want to continue to engender a sense of
government infallibility, were i working for it."
which i am not, clearly.
232317fnord
the wine commonsewer|2.15.05 @ 5:18PM|#
Dan H, good point. I have to admit that it never occurred to
me.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories mind you, just making
conversation.
TWC
|2.15.05 @ 6:10PM|#
Does it strike anyone else as suspicious that Popular
Mechanics would choose to run an article pooh-poohing 9/11
consipiracy theories at this particular time?
Especially because of the ... you know.
I can say no more.
|2.19.05 @ 3:34PM|#
All the JFK debunking you could possibly want @:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
From an old prof of mine.
Kevin
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.
William of Ockham
�Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
stupidity.�
Tobert J. Hanlon
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245