Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

September 11th


Other Stuff


Page By Category

September 11th Conspiracies - What Do We Know? - Page 5

Author: Muertos
Added: August 9, 2010
Discuss: Discuss this article

This is page five of the September 11th: What Do We Know? article. If you were linked here by mistake, please refer to page one in this section.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Part 1: World Trade Center Towers--Basic Facts
  3. Part 2: Hijack and Collapse--Cause and Effect
  4. Part 3: Responsibility
  5. Part 4: Peripheral Issues--What's Not Covered Here And Why
  6. Part 5: This Account of What Happened vs. Alternative Theories--Why You Can't Be Agnostic Anymore
  7. Conclusion: What Can We Know?

Part 5: This Account of What Happened vs. Alternative Theories--Why You Can't Be Agnostic Anymore

Some people who profess agnosticism about 9/11, or believe that no definite conclusion can be reached, will say when presented with evidence of the kind laid out by this document, "Well, this is just one theory. There are other theories that could also be true." The purpose of this section is to illustrate why this is incorrect.

Purveyors of other theories (conspiracy theories) will often claim that the "official story" is merely one account, as if there is more than one account that could be true, and each one is essentially co-equal in its relationship to the truth. However, the chain of events proven in this document is superior to any other alternative theory, and thus must be regarded as true, for the following reasons:

  1. It is the only account that accounts for all the known facts;
  2. It is the only account that is complete in itself, meaning that it does not require further conjecture or embellishment to explain its key principles;
  3. It is the only account that is internally consistent;
  4. It is the only account supported by evidence; and
  5. It is the only account that is logical.

Fact Accounting and Internal Consistency

Let us briefly compare the set of facts proven by this document, and the leading alternative theory, "controlled demolition" (as put forward by Dr. Steven Jones--most other conspiracy theories follow a similar pattern).

Events Proven Here "Controlled Demolition" Theory
Complete beginning-to-end explanation: who, what, how, and why. Incomplete. Omits who and why, which must be filled in by conjecture and embellishment.
Explains why planes were used. Cannot explain use of planes (meaning, planes essentially superfluous to main demolition plot).
All facts--hijackings, plane debris, phone calls, actions of hijackers, observations of witnesses, etc.--accounted for. Most facts unexplained or unaddressed.
Central feature (plane strikes causing tower collapses) relies upon accounted-for evidence. Central feature (demolition charges) relies upon evidence that has never been found.
Supported by vast majority of scientific and professional analysis. Supported by tiny minority of scientists and professionals whose work is regarded as faulty by vast majority of scientific/professional community.
Explains why collapse of towers was predicted by witnesses before they happened. Cannot explain why witnesses predicted tower collapse.
Explains evidence demonstrating Mohammed Atta's guilt. Cannot account for evidence demonstrating Mohammed Atta's guilt without resort to conjecture unrelated to the central feature of the theory (demolition charges).
Explains why Osama bin Laden confessed. Cannot explain why Osama bin Laden confessed.
Explains why WTC7 collapsed. Cannot explain why WTC7 collapsed without resort to conjecture (meaning, speculation on why WTC7 was a primary target and why, if it was, planes were not used to strike it).
Clearly identifies guilty parties (Atta, Al Qaida, bin Laden) who had demonstrated preexisting motives. Cannot identify guilty parties without resort to pure conjecture both as to identities and as to motives.
Requires participation of small group of people in cohesive structure unlikely to have been discovered before the attacks carried out. Requires participation of vast numbers of people in uncoordinated, non-cohesive groups, extremely likely to have given themselves away before attacks carried out.
Evidence in support is freely available from multiple independent reliable sources. "Evidence" in support comes only from small fringe sources (conspiracy web sites, select individuals etc.)
Logical, plausible and internally consistent. Illogical, farfetched, requires great leap of imagination even to conceive as possible.

From this comparison, it is evident that alternative theories are far from co-equal with the series of events proven in this document. For this reason, it is illogical and counter-intuitive to conclude that what has been presented here is "just another theory."

Could Happen vs. Did Happen

Another reason why the sequence of events proven here should be compelling, as opposed to alternative claims (conspiracy theories), is evidentiary: not just that this sequence of events is supported by evidence, but that proponents of alternative claims usually spend much of their time making the case that something could happen--whereas this account demonstrates that the events presented here did happen.

Example: take the Steven Jones "controlled demolition" hypothesis considered in Part 2 above. The entire thrust of Dr. Jones's arguments is that the "official story" could not have happened, and that his version could have happened. This, however, is not the same as claiming that it did happen. For a theory like controlled demolition, in order to demonstrate that it is likely enough to have happened to be accepted as truth (or at least as potential truth), one must (1) explain away all the evidence presented here; (2) establish, scientifically and factually, that controlled demolition in those circumstances is possible; and (3) present evidence that it actually happened in this specific case. To date, Dr. Jones and his supporters have focused only on point (2), giving perfunctory and selective attention to point (1) and ignoring point (3) completely. Controlled demolition supporters sometimes venture into speculation as to how the explosives might have been planted--but they cannot present a shred of evidence to show that these speculated scenarios actually occurred.

By contrast, the sequence of events presented here is not merely a supposition of what could have happened, but what actually did happen. It is not a conjectural theory along the lines of, "Well, it's possible that Al Qaida hijackers could have taken over planes and crashed them into the WTC towers." The evidence presented here affirmatively indicates that this is actually what happened--not potentially, which is the realm in which "controlled demolition" theories operate, but actually, which is the level of fact needed in order to declare something the probable truth.

Conclusion: What Can We Know?

The question, "What can we really know about September 11?" is in a way almost pejorative, suggesting that the automatic answer is, "Not much," or "Less than we think we know." In actuality, the reverse is true: we know a great deal about September 11, and we can be extremely confident of the conclusions that we draw from that knowledge.

Virtually none of the crucial information on the September 11 attacks is hidden, secret, undiscovered or classified. We did not need to rely on any hidden pieces of information or conjecture the existence of as-yet undiscovered evidence in order to reach a firm conclusion. As was demonstrated in this document, eyewitness accounts, detailed information on the hijackers and the planes, scientific analysis of the collapses, personal documents of the perpetrators, and confessions of the masterminds of the attacks are all in the public record. Most of these materials have been public since the day they came into existence.

The point to take away from this analysis is the following: we do not need to rely on the word of any one group, government agency, or individual person in order to formulate a testable, logical and verifiable conclusion regarding the September 11 attacks. The evidence collected in this essay is enough to reach a firm and confident conclusion. That conclusion is not reliant on "spin" or subject to misperception, at least not after care has been taken to use verifiable, corroborated evidence, as I've done here. Those who have long maintained a stance of agnosticism regarding 9/11, confused perhaps by an illusory appearance of "one group's word against another," are invited to do their own investigation of the facts, because the facts are out there and freely available. Hopefully this essay has been helpful in demonstrating that this sort of analysis is very possible, and also that it is worthwhile.

Page Navigation: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 ]