Smoking-Bun

One of the more popular recent YouTube conspiracy theory videos is 9/11 – A Conspiracy Theory which currently has about 700,000 views. They helpfully provide a transcript of the video, which is a sarcastic statement on what many truthers call  the ‘official conspiracy theory’ implying that the widely accepted truth is actually less believable than whatever conspiracy theorists believe. Here are my comments on the transcript.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

The evidence that Bin Laden was ever on dialysis is incredibly weak, but it’s in no way clear how this is in any way relevant to the actions of other terrorists anyway. Certainly there’s no evidence that his use of a satellite phone or a laptop had anything to do with the preparations for 9/11, which nobody has really ever claimed were directly organised by Bin Laden himself. A straw man argument, basically. The story of the response from NORAD and the FAA is very widely known these days, right down to the audio recordings – several detailed books and articles lay it out to the nth degree – none has uncovered a conspiracy, or deviates wildly from what has now been established as what happened on the day.

My translation with the propaganda taken out. 19 Al-Queda terrorists hijacked planes on 9/11.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

The allegations come thick and fast now. There’s a good discussion of the allegations about the hijackers drinking habits here, but the bottom line is that whatever the contradictions in their personal lives, the evidence is very clear regarding their whereabouts and actions on 9/11. There’s a lot of chat about the manner of Flight 77′s erratic flightpath, but nowhere is it explained why such an unorthodox manouevre is evidence of a skilled pilot rather than a rather unskilled one pushing the plane to limits it probably shouldn’t be pushed. Levelling out a plane is certainly not a complex manouevre. The 2.3 trillion dollar claim is one of the more childish truther assertions, as if it would be announced missing the day before it was due to be ‘buried’ – in fact the story is typical truther misrepresentation, only missing money in as much as a signal of dated accounting systems that needed updating. The relevance of this to a possible conspiracy is utterly unproven hearsay.

Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

“Knew who did it” is a very misleading phrase here – certainly Bin Laden was the chief suspect and was reported as so very early on during and after the event. The suspicion hardly came out of thin air – as truthers themselves like to argue there was intelligence on Al-Queda before 9/11 and the USS Cole bombing happened less than a year before. Working out the very likely chief suspects was not a difficult task. The reference to the hijacker’s passport recovered in New York has always seemed suspicious granted, but it is by no means the only evidence (the manifests, the black boxes, Atta’s belongings, Bin Laden’s confession etc.).

My interpretation: An investigation began immediately with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda the chief suspects.

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

No investigation was based solely on testimony obtained under torture, in fact it’s pretty unclear if any directly was. But what this video doesn’t explain is why a poor investigation equals a conspiracy. It just equals a poor investigation. The 9/11 Commission was partially hamstrung and most involved have admitted that, but that doesn’t equal a conspiracy either. For example, how could the 9/11 commission rule on WTC7 in 2004 when NIST’s technical report on that collapse wasn’t available until 2008? In many cases the commission would have to have had predicted the areas that the truth movement have moved onto in the meantime to placate its critics. It certainly didn’t answer all the questions that the victims steering committee wanted answers, but none of their questions directly implied a conspiracy, and to suggest they did is dishonest.

My interpretation. The 9/11 Commission, faced with the impossible task of examining all areas of 9/11, delivered an account of the events that hasn’t placated all critics of the US administration over 9/11.

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.

My issue here is not that this isn’t necessarily true (it is complicated, and there is a good deal of speculation over this issue) but that it isn’t actually part of a mainstream conspiracy theory. It’s widely known that intelligence efforts that might have had a chance of preventing 9/11. It’s also widely known that there has been obstruction to the uncovering of the truth over these events. But a sense of proportion also needs to be applied. It does not follow that there is evidence of actual wrongdoing, and it is likely that human error, or internal politics, or a desire for continuing secrecy in terms of national security, is the reason for this impasse. Would we all like to see this issue investigated more thoroughly? – I guess so. Is there any likelihood of this happening? None. Is it of any real importance? In terms of its relevance to world events its a drop in the ocean.

My interpretation: We may never know the intricacies of the US investigations prior to and following 9/11.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

This is a real dead end. The investigation happened and turned up nothing. Short of accusing investigators of being liars there is nowhere to go on this issue.

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.

And the only truther response to this so far is incredulity. Worthless. It’s of interest for one reason only – of the thousands of pages of information NIST has released, truthers seem only interested in the bits they haven’t released. What about the rest, all the recommendations for the building code? All lies as well? What about the other hundreds of scientific studies undertaken by NIST? This is potentially more life-threatening than the conspiracy theory itself!

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

A very strange (ie wrong) interpretation of the link given in the transcript that describes a court request for a fee to be waived for the release of FBI documents. The second part of this sentence is accompanied by a totally weird picture of the clean-up operation at the Pentagon that the trancript links to some totally unfounded speculation that the FBI’s investigation at the Pentagon was actually a mission to remove any evidence. Evidence that the maker of this video is a loon, much further down the conspiracy theory rabbit-hole than he might pretend.

This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).

This section includes pictures of witnesses Barry Jennings and Indira Singh, 9/11 witnesses cherry-picked (and quote-mined) by truthers to in some way support their positions. Some of the others like Springmann, Grove and Bergman have nothing to do with 9/11 other than offering their punditry to ‘connect the dots’ that truthers so like to see connected in ways that suit them.

Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

Okay so now he’s talking utter crap. X, Y and Z happened, and somehow this supports the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy? This is very similar to the David Icke approach to human history where of course B followed A but the reason was alien lizards, not just because it happened that way. A truthers incredulity of established history is not evidence.

This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

Another common conspiracy theory approach – mention enough other conspiracy theories or scandals and somehow your own conspiracy theory might seem a bit more true.

If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

My interpretation: Nevertheless conspiracy theorists continue to speculate wildly about 9/11 based on completely unproven allegations, hiding behind the notion that they are merely asking questions.

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.

So, overall:

19 Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked planes on 9/11. An investigation began immediately with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda the chief suspects. The 9/11 Commission, faced with the impossible task of examining all areas of 9/11, delivered an account of the events that hasn’t placated all critics of the US administration over 9/11. We may never know the intricacies of the US investigations prior to and following 9/11. Nevertheless conspiracy theorists continue to speculate wildly about 9/11 based on completely unproven allegations, hiding behind the notion that they are merely asking questions.

The BBC has once again tackled popular 9/11 conspiracy theories in a documentary last Tuesday. Entitled “The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On” I think in principle it makes interesting viewing for those unfamiliar with such theories. But in terms of dealing with them in a public service context, I think the documentary is unfortunately a pretty major own goal. This is a programme all about rebutting the loony theories, yet I think in the end it ends up promoting them.

The problem with making TV programmes, especially for a mainstream viewing audience, is that you have to entertain. Unfortunately programme makers are concerned that there is nothing very entertaining, especially visually, about considering the publicly-available evidence of 9/11. So this documentary, like most that have been made on the subject, begins with mysterious music and uncritically presents the case for a conspiracy. This, unfortunately, is plain deceit in my opinion, because there is simply no point in giving any credibility whatsoever to conspiracy theories that in reality fail basic tests of simple logic, let alone attain any sort of scientific basis.

The BBC film-makers know that the theories are utter bunkum, yet have to give them credibility in order to justify making a programme. Just as they did in the 7/7 programme I have commented on before. They’re just making a living after all, I guess they’d say. But I don’t see this as good journalism, or a public service.

What is the point of a programme that promotes the most ludicrous conspiracy theorists, most of whom are disowned by their own movement? Crackpot shock-jock Alex Jones, who preaches armageddon on the air three hours every day, the ludicrous buffoon Jim Fetzer, versions of Loose Change that were discredited and even at times disowned by the makers of Loose Change. Talk about the easy targets.

So you get Jim Fetzer’s utter garbage about the pristeen lawn at the Pentagon crash site repeated three times in an hour. This was bullshit when it was first spoken, refuted by any actual real-world assessment of the crash site – why do the BBC need to promote it again? Worse they mention it without offering the incredibly obvious reasons why his argument makes no sense and is easily proven false by evidence. They offer Fetzer’s ludicrous rubbish consistently throughout the programme and let it stand. The same with Alex Jones. He says that Bin Laden didn’t die, it was a body double – that is obvious bullshit, and I think it’s simply unethical to let him say that on a programme without any challenge to his views.

There’s a general lack of internal logic in the programme. The pattern of the show is a crackpot theorist saying they did this, and an authority figure replying that they didn’t. It’s like those abortion debates you get on the radio between a far-right Christian and a militant feminist – the middle ground, where the actual meat of the debate exists, is ignored in favour of tit-for-tat soundbites at either end of the spectrum.

Niels Harrit is the only theorist successfully challenged in the programme – his ‘thermitic material’ findings, supposed evidence of incendiary materials at Ground Zero that is lauded as a scientifically-proven smoking-gun by many in the truth movement, are basically dismissed out of hand by genuine scientific experts in the field in a fairly conclusive rebuttal. Yet Harrit is given the last word in the section, and much of his guff about the manner of collapse is not challenged at all, so the programme basically bungles the issue.

Unfortunately you can’t combat a conspiracy theory about deceit from government institutions by wheeling on FBI and CIA officers to deny them. A murderer isn’t innocent because they say they didn’t do it! There’s a wealth of credible independent evidence to refute claims, so why is an authority spokesman so often the only evidence the BBC presents – it’s a ludicrous approach. So we get Fetzer saying that the ‘mysterious’ C-130 at the Pentagon was part of the conspiracy, and the pilot of that flight saying it was a routine flight. The BBC sides with the latter, but that is not ‘clearing up the case’ because the viewer will believe who they want to believe. This is not evidence, it is tabloid chatter, and poor journalism and poor documentary making.

Rather than clearing up these issues, the programme ends up muddying the waters further. Rather than convincing viewers that these conspiracy theories are meritless, I think the programme makes a convincing advert for them. And by concentrating on the trivial aspects of the theories they stand a good chance of sending interested viewers down the rabbit hole of internet rumour that they may never return from.

There is a good programme to be made on 9/11 theories, but it requires scientific fervour and a genuine integrity in terms of tackling the issues at the root.

‘Activist’ Jon Gold lists 50 facts about 9/11 in his article “The Facts Speak For Themselves“. This document is often cited as a palettable and well-reasoned introduction to the milder end of 9/11 conspiracy theories. But I don’t share many of Gold’s opinions, and I don’t think his views are palettable or well-reasoned. Here’s my response to one of his facts.

Dick Cheney was the CEO for a company called Halliburton. During his tenure there, he gave a speech at the Institute of Petroleum that said, “while many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.”

More quote-mining, from a long speech given on a trip to Britain. Again we are supposed to believe through the transformative magic of ‘tezt-bolding’ that a few of Cheney’s words carry special nefarious meaning. What he is saying about oil in the middle east, after all, is undisputable, and everyone knows it. Is him stating the obvious suspicious?

Of course, Dick Cheney has said a lot of things. But only some of them are available on a largely defunct website of a British trade group. If these words are of deep significance, it’s lucky for truthers that a google search can uncover the conspiracy.

On 10/11/2005, it was reported that the shares that Dick Cheney claimed he no longer had with Halliburton, rose 3281% in one year.

More politicking. The counter-argument to this sleaze allegation is well documented here. For the record, the argument is that Cheney’s deferred payments from Haliburton were part of his agreement on stepping down from the company before serving the Bush administration, and the stock options were apparently pledged to charity.

Regardless of the back and forth of this issue, holding stock in a company benefitting from government policy, or even having a potential conflict of interest, is a long-established ethical issue that does deserve some scrutiny. But it is in no way evidence that Cheney participated in any cover-up or conspiracy around 9/11.

Real Fact: There is no evidence linking Dick Cheney with a cover-up or a conspiracy surrounding 9/11.

The BBC presented another of its ‘Conspiracy Files’ programmes, this time on a selection of the theories surrounding the 7/7 bombings in London. It cites the usual viral youtube videos as its inspiration, and sets out to rubbish them in an entertaining way with mission impossible style music running throughout.

The basic formula of these shows is always the same. A number of ludicrous conspiracy theories are introduced, and left hanging for 20 minutes while the programme fakes a serious tone, only to knock them apart with relative ease in the last 10 minutes of the show. As documentary making goes, this is utter schlock, appealing only to a very casual audience with no knowledge or any real interest in the subject.

So ‘campaigner’ Nick Kollerstrom happily presents his theories about how the so-called terrorists were never in London early in the programme. And he seems like a nice if slightly doddery old chap with a decent point to make. But wait – in the last 10 minutes he is uncovered as a holocaust denier, and confronted with clear evidence that blows his silly allegations out of the water – he wibbles into the camera a little bit. You actually do feel a little sorry for the nazi-sympathising old twat. If his silly claims weren’t a disgraceful insult to the victims of a terrorist attack you might almost be tempted to just give him a biscuit and a cup of tea.

Well-known British oddball Tony Gosling doesn’t fare much better. Confronted by the fact that two of the major proponents of 7/7 conspiracy theories also claim they are the messiah, he warns us that they may still have good points to make despite their Jesus-complexes and not to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’. Truth is, most viewers could imagine these loons throwing babies with bathwater in any which direction.

As usual, this documentary won’t persuade conspiracy theorists of anything other than the fact that the BBC is in on the conspiracy. You can’t shift years of idiotic accusations with a glossy 50-minute documentary – there’s no time to even begin to engage the myriad of claims made by the fantasists. And the truth is that any attempt to actually engage with these issues would be deeply boring television. Conspiracy theorists simply sit in front of their televisions or computer screens getting annoyed and shouting “Yes, but…”. These theories never really end, they just shift endlessly from claim to claim, often in ridiculous circles.

The only real benefit of the programme might be to prove to British Muslims that the conspiracy theory that many of them have bought into was peddled by an internet youtube amateur with a wispy white beard who thinks he is Jesus Christ and that the ark of the covenant is buried under a hill near his house. The basic truth that most conspiracy theorists are slightly short of the full picnic is a very obvious observation to make, but perhaps it’s good to remind everyone of that fact from time to time.

I’m still hung up on this expenses scandal here in the UK. Members of the public are still sounding off ad nauseum about their disgust with politics and politicians, and it’s all quite nauseating. Of course this sort of anger in the UK can only stir up angry letters to The Times. “I was so angry I changed my status on Facebook”. We are such a docile breed now as the public.

The trouble with this debate is that a significant percentage of the public seem to be casually suggesting the idea of just tearing up our democracy with the vague notion that we would be better off ‘starting again’. Whereas in reality there is no hope for that sort of process.

It’s an idle threat. “You’re never getting chocolate again” is what we say to our kids, both with the full knowledge that it’s a course of action we would never actually have the stomach to carry through.

Imagine we tore it all up or went communist or anarchist, or started some new and independent and highly successful system of self-governance. I guarantee that within five years the US would invade on some humanitarian pretext, if our closer neighbours in Europe hadn’t got there first. Start fucking about with our current system of government and we’d simply be swallowed up by those whom it threatens.

All we really want to do is vent our anger – we want our indignance noted. It’s not very healthy is it. It’s the equivalent of shouting down the phone at some poor dogsbody in India because you’ve been charged extra on your overdraft.

It makes me wonder if I’m just out-of-step with the general public. I have always assumed that politicians are power-hungry and money-hungry wankers – the expenses scandal tells me nothing that I didn’t feel I already knew. Is the public shock faked? I have to wonder. Are the public only shocked because the Telegraph tells them they should be?

Tom Dalyell is an interesting example. He claimed 18,000 pounds expenses to build a bookcase and was eventually given £7800 for the project. String him up? But he was one of the handful of MPs who actually vocally opposed our aggression in the middle-east, and thus one of the handful who blessed British politics with some sort of reasonable alternative in a crucial debate. His agitation may have saved lives. What do his bookcases matter in the face of a genuine political debate?

The biggest irony of the last week comes from some of the suggestions that the Queen exercise her right to dissolve parliament – I’d take a wild guess that the idea that anyone should live like royalty at the expense of the public probably doesn’t disgust the Queen too much.