Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > The only conspiracy I spent any time looking into was the theory that 
> > the NASA moon landings were faked.  I found this conspiracy theory 
> > extremely unconvincing.
>
> Does that have something to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories?  People do 
> conspire, you know.
>
>
> > I saw the two towers collapse live on TV.  The whole thing seemed 
> > extremely real to me, and I found the manner in which the towers 
> > collapsed extremely plausible.
>
> It sounds like you think the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are saying that 
> the towers did not collapse.
>
> Did you know that the author of the book is a retired theology 
> professor? This is him:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin

Look, Mike, your usual conspiracy theories go something like this - "The 
Whitehouse is striving to suppress evidence of anthropologically induced 
global warming, and oil companies are hiring lobbyists to distort 
science" - or "Bush's government overstated the evidence to support 
their invasion of Iraq."  Whether I agree or disagree, these are 
rational theories worthy of discussion.  All your previous conspiracy 
theories have been like this.

But "the government flew the airplanes themselves into the twin towers 
which were blown up by explosives" is at a whole different level, like 
"NASA faked the moon landings" or "Roosevelt deliberately allowed the 
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor" or even "the US government keeps 
evidence of UFO's and aliens covered up in Area 51."  Honestly, when I 
thought you were pushing these 9/11 conspiracy theories, my first 
thought is that you were joking, and I was going to scold Vern for 
taking you seriously.

These conspiracies are as large as the Manhattan Atomic Bomb project, 
and yet by comparison, the Manhattan project, forged in the maximal 
secrecy the government could muster, was as leaky as a bucket with a six 
inch hole in it.  Look at your previous theories - even if I didn't like 
them, I couldn't refute that well place government officials were 
backing the stories, and the theories had at least a sense that even if 
perhaps not entirely true, that they weren't entirely false either.

Now, I do admit that I haven't spent a great deal of time studying the 
9/11 theories, but the small amount I have seen basically boil down to 
people saying that a building couldn't possibly have reacted to the 
airplane collision in the manner in which it did, when frankly modeling 
how the collision would effect this building is a major engineering 
project probably on par with the difficulty of predicting tomorrow's 
weather.

And, for example, if the Whitehouse had previously planned this whole 
thing, why when Bush was first told about it at the primary school did 
he spend several minutes looking like a deer caught in headlights - a 
reaction I would only expect from someone caught completely by surprise.

Stephen

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion