I just spent a little time reading blogs on “the Guardian UK” site called
Comment is Free
.
In one of the blogs, the topic is
The Truth is Out There: Conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks have been debunked, yet they offer a strange sort of comfort (by Glenn Reynolds).
I still haven’t made up my mind about what really may have happened on that day, but I try to keep an open mind. I found this comment by oleglions to be a well written and thought out response to the topic. Here it is:
I have read the article in Popular Mechanics mentioned by Mr. Reynolds. Frankly, I’m not convinced by their ‘debunking’ logic. I still can’t see (maybe, PopMech should have presented a detailed and convincing computer simulation) how a 115-ton aircraft could have caused such small damage. Pictures and logic of the Big Lie book mentioned by the ‘debunkers’ are far more convincing.
Pictures in PM could have been doctored to show the remains of the aircraft and the ‘witness’ could have simply been told what to say ‘in the interests of national security’. And the key question – whether the ‘highjackers’ had enough skills to pilot 767 & 757 (let alone hit their targets with a ‘cruise-missile’ precision) was completely ignored.
For starters, let’s accept that theoretically there are at least FOUR possibilities which fit the traditional structure ‘motive-means-opportunity’:
1. ‘An official version’ of the events – four planes were hijacked by groups of Al-Quaida operatives and used three of them to attack WTC buildings and the Pentagon
2. 9/11 was an attack on the US by some foreigh government (not directly associated with Al-Quaida) which the US Government for some reasons decided to overlook
3. ‘Passive’ involvement of some group within US Government – they knew about the plot beforehand but chose not to intervene to reap the political benefits from 9/11 (justify increased power of the federal govenrment, radically increase spending on the military, intelligence and law enforcement, justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.)
4. ‘Active’ involvement of some group within US Government that has masterminded and executed the attack and later put the blame on Al-Quaida, having tampered or fabricated the evidence to ‘point’ to the Arab terrorists (again, to reap the enormous political benefits from this tragedy)
So far, after having read quite a few articles on 9/11 (including the PM article), both by the proponents of the ‘official’ version and by ‘conspiracy theorists’ I was unable to decide which scenario best fits the reality.
I believe the key questions that need to be answered (and supported by ‘hard evidence’ or at least by computer or physical simulation) are:
1. Was the Pentagon attacked by a plane (the available pictures cast a severe doubt on this possibility), a helicopter, a car bomb, an internal explosion, a bomb dropped from the helicopter, a cruise missile, or a drone equipped with a powerful bomb? In other words, which ‘attack weapon’ is the most consistent with the pictures of the damage to the building and the debris from the attack (the ‘hard evidence’)?
2. Was it possible for the ’suspect hijackers’ – with their established flight training and experience (a) to accurately plot their course directly to NYC, the WTC and the Pentagon after highjacking, (b) to fly 767 and 757s at very low altitude and (c) to aim the planes accurately at their targets (especially the Pentagon) to achieve such a perfect “direct hit”?
3. Does the ‘Global Hawk’ equipment and technology (remote control of passenger planes over the US soil by the US military) exist and if it does, how and by whom it is operated and can it be used to accomplish the ‘9/11-style’ attack?
4. Is it technically possible to (a) install the GPS-based guidance system used in cruise missiles on a civilian airplane (757 and 767); (b) somehow transfer control of the airplane from the pilot to this guidance system and (c) use this system to guide the aircraft to the WTC with ‘cruise missile precision’?
5. Can a homing device be used to augment this guidance system to allow for more accurate homing on the targets (WTC towers)?
6. Is it technically and operationally possible to completely block all communications from the aircraft and then forge the ‘communication tapes’?
7. How ‘hard’ really is the evidence linking 9/11 to Bin Laden and his Al-Quaida?
Until these questions are answered and the right scenario is presented and supported by hard evidence and common sense, the whole matter will not be put to rest (regardless of the wishes of George W. Bush and the general public – in the USA and overseas)
Links:
Debunking the 9/11 Myths – March 2005 Cover Story in Popular Mechanics Magazine
