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.]

Comments

[Henry]

Your last comment causes me to believe that you are unfamiliar with the Bohemian Grove ceremonies.

[Gary Gunnels]

I must be out of the "9/11 conspiracy loop."

[Brett]

I had heard a couple of those before, but some were new. Wow.

[Isaac Bartram]

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.

[Isaac Bartram]

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. 🙂

[Bry M.]

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...

[PapayaSF]

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.

[dhex]

"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.

[D Anghelone]

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.

[tm]

I was unaware that Popular Mechanics was part of the Jewish cabal. Thanks for the heads-up.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

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

[Jason Ligon]

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.]

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]

Carlos Hathcock - famous Vietnam-era sniper - tried to duplicate LHO's feat and failed.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

For those who can't google, see this.

[kmw]

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.

[D Anghelone]

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.

[Case Closed]

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

[thoreau]

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!

[Bonar Law]

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.

[pragmatist]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Conspiracy Theories: Political science for schizophrenics and morons.

[thoreau]

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?

[Evan Williams]

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.

[Ayatollah Usoe]

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?

[Sheridan]

Au contraire, Ayatollah! The heroes of Babylon 5 composed a "Conspiracy of Light"!

[dhex]

"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. 🙂

[dhex]

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]

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

[[Deleted]]

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.

[kevrob]

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