Whom to Blame for the 9/11 Attacks?

I've been noticing an increase of 9/11 conspiracy talks lately, and as much as I consider myself an every-day skeptic, my mind won't take me to the fringes of paranoia. Yes, I mean paranoia because conspiracy theorists usually are suspicious and distrustful of people with little evidence to support their claims. Although I enjoy a nice argument with these "truthers" simply because they force me to ask myself where and how I got the information I use, they have yet to convince me of their interesting opinions about Bush and his conscious lies to the American public. I would not consider the people holding these opinions liars, however they do twist information that creates a story that fits their argument. It's more of a exaggeration than an outright lie, but the scattered groups of the "truther" movement do spew misinformation to embolden ranks and conscript more Americans.

This is the war cry of the many people who fit into these 9/11 groups. But, what they are really saying is, do the "right" research. As is the case with many conspiracy groups any information that is not published by other conspiracy groups is automatically wrong for the following reasons:

1. A bias towards the conspiracy
2. Because the information is published by the big bad government who is looking to cover up their mess
3. Because people are ignorant and are willing to accept the lies of the powerful men who tell them

This is why it's tough to argue with a 9/11 "truther", or any conspiracy theorist for that matter. Because no matter where your information comes from, the authority of the person who said it, or the fact that you are human and possess some semblance of reason and logic, the facts you're armed with don't mean a thing. A conspiracy theorist, in order to prove their point, has to argue that then entire system is structured to carry out the lie. This means there has to be a conscious decision on the part of the government, media, and any other organization that releases information to the general public, to pull a blindfold over our eyes. In essence when the 9/11 "truthers" argue that September 11th was inside job by the Bush administration, they are arguing that the entire system played along in order to fool Americas. That's a bold statement, and in order to prove it there needs to be some incredibly good evidence. I have yet to be shown the facts.

Aristotle, back in his day, did a wonderful job explaining the power of rhetoric and the methods used to persuade someone to think according to your opinions. He explains that pathos (using an emotionally tied argument) is a great way to break through the logic based arguments of an opponent. In a modern image based society, pathos is incredibly easy to come by, and is used by the "truthers" to counteract logical debate. I quick look at the movie "Loose Change" shows pathos at its best. With quasi-facts being disguised as actual evidence and the background amplified by the sad music and vivid pictures, it's tough to look away and actually think about what they are saying. Although the facts are sketchy at best, the music makes it all that much more serious. They do try "logos", however much of their argument originates in the natural emotions of fear, frustration, and anger. By explaining that the twin towers were brought down by the ambitions of one presidential administration and continually showing images of those collapsing building, and then playing a hyper-emotional music performance, they inspire us to forget about reason and adopt this pathos argument. It's easy to do, and history shows us that it is an effective way to convert "nonbelievers".

Logos is the ancient concept of logic, or the use of facts and irrefutable evidence to prove an argument. As I said earlier, the "truthers" dabble with this idea, but refuse to use it fairly. They don't like the idea that they have to share facts, so, sometimes, they blatantly alter them. This happens plenty in the field of argument, however one needs to be careful to not fall for it. So, in respect for the Greek's logos I look to debunk some of the myths that these theorists have concocted.

Myth #1: The fire ignited by the jet fuel was not hot enough to melt steel, and thus the fires could not have made the building come crashing down. It must have been caused by a controlled demolition. On top of this there has never been any other steel framed building that has collapsed due to fire damage.

Alright, let's begin. First of all, this argument starts years back when the building was being constructed. They used a spray-on fire retardant that will come into play as the plane, flying in at 500 mph, hit the building. This scraped off the spray-on and gave the fire more power to alter the steel frames. Yes, it's true that the jet fuel, burning at an estimated 2,190 degrees Fahrenheit, would not have melted the steel which has a melting point of 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit. But, as many of the experts have said, the steel didn't need to melt in order to collapse on itself which to most people would be somewhat obvious. By 980 degrees the steel columns supporting the building would have been at 10% strength and would have begun the shift of pressure towards the "shell" of the building. As time passed more and more pressure was exerted on the outside of the structure causing complete collapse.

Myth #2: The use of explosive material was used to bring down the World Trade Center Buildings, and we know this because he have first hand accounts of people who heard the explosion.

This is the point where I would like to remind people of an earlier remark I made. The "truthers" use quasi-facts that they mold to fit their theory (I was going to say agenda but I don't know if they really have one). They edit the first hand accounts in a way that would even make Fox News proud. Take the quote from a firefighter that was in the building as the towers came down. A "truther" site quoted firefighter Craig Carlsen as saying,

" we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.”

However, this is taken completely out of context. The reader of this quote would automatically correlate the building coming down with the ten explosions Mr. Carlsen heard (mind you he didn't see them). But, let's take a look at the complete statement this firefighter gave. He said,

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

The last sentence, which was left out, explains that the firefighter did not think these explosions were anything other than the damage done by the plane. I might not be able to prove that this firefighter wasn't captured by the government and told to lie, but neither can the conspiracy theorists. And, their deliberate attempt to hide the full quote shows that the "truthers" are having a tough time supporting their argument with fact. These are not the only elaborations found in their argument. For more check out this link. So, it's safe to say that the first hand accounts really don't mesh well with the idea that there were controlled explosions, detonated by the government, bringing down the World Trade Center Buildings.

Myth #3: Prior to collapse there were explosive charges emmited from some of the floors.

Well, explosives are one way to put it. However, that's not what actually happened. To make it easy I would like to explain it with an orange. Take an orange, peel the skin, and hold the orange in your hand. Now, squeeze it. What happens? You probably found that the juice "exploded" into your hand. It makes sense, and this is what occurred on 9/11. As pressure built-up in the elevator shaft air was condensed and escaped. This caused the so-called "explosions" that "truthers" enjoy pointing out. On top of this, it is thought by many of the conspiracy theorists that thermite was used to cause the demolition, however they forget to tell you that thermite is silent and would not explain the explosions that the first-responders heard.

Again it's important to realize that "truthers" would claim my logic is flawed and the facts I state were given to me by the people looking to conceal the true story. Can I, beyond a shadow of a doubt, disprove such nonsense? No. But, I take refuge in the fact that it would take much more evidence than they have, to prove the government was lying to me. No argument is 100% because of the nature of the world we live in, but some people are willing to make a larger leap of faith than others. The "truthers" are one of them. Groups like this demand that little evidence is proof enough of large assumptions. Ad Hoc arguments are created to poke holes in he established version of the 9/11 story. But, this is to assume that small pieces of evidence that are scattered and not completely true trump real proof that points to Al Qaeda's involvement. This is nothing to believe in. The facts are not there. The evidence is sketchy at best. The quotes are taken out of context. And thus, the argument falls on its face. So, if one is still on the fence, take a look at the evidence. It's always good to know why you accept one theory over another, and do yourself an even greater favor by doing the "wrong" research or should I say the research that the "truthers" don't want you to see.