Letter to the Editor | 9/11 conspiracy theories are based in deception, false information

Examine any historical event or current issue significant enough to capture widespread public attention, and you will consistently find a number of people who do not accept its mainstream understanding. Because of the very nature of conspiracy theories, however, the thrust of their argument does not find support in solid evidence, but rather hinges on coincidence, paranoia and poor understanding of actual events. Mike Godbe’s recent Letter to the Editor (“Following lecture, students must seriously consider facts of 9/11,” 4.23.09) is no exception.

It is understandable that Godbe does not detail his own views regarding what happened on Sept. 11, for his argument attempts to discredit the official explanation, ignoring the gaping holes in what he presumably considers a feasible alternative explanation. The most widely accepted Sept. 11 conspiracy theory, which Godbe seems to advance, posits that government operatives planted explosives in the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7, using the hijacked airplanes as diversions to place the blame on Muslim extremists. The government then could use this tragedy as a false flag operation to curtail civil liberties, invade Iraq and gain control of more oil resources. Never mind that every single credible, scientific analysis of the events surrounding Sept. 11 has supported the government’s explanation. Never mind that no workers in the World Trade Center noticed any of the government operatives who supposedly planted the necessary explosives to demolish two massive skyscrapers. Never mind that no concrete evidence of such a widespread conspiracy exists, that no one has confessed to such crimes or leaked any damning evidence. Never mind that none of the hijackers were Iraqi. Never mind all that—a Defense Applications of Nanomaterials symposium was held five months before Sept. 11, so something diabolical must have happened.

A quick Google search reveals a number of articles from qualified engineers and academics regarding popular Sept. 11 conspiracy theories. In these, the insultingly small amount of evidence proffered by Godbe, relating to Thermite and freefall of the towers, was given due consideration and roundly rejected in in-depth and unsparing detail. The Sept. 11 conspiracy movement is mired in intellectual dishonesty and, until it can legitimately advance its viewpoint, deserves nothing but extreme skepticism and scorn.

— Evan Fredericksen ’11

6 comments

Your name

Thu May 28 2009 09:03

If our objective was to control more oil resources, why didn't we? The oil fields were ours for the taking but the first thing we did was hand them over to the Iraqis. It's a common theme among Bush-haters that the Iraqis are amassing a fortune in oil revenue while we spend hundreds of billions on their reconstruction. What's your hypothesis, that we changed our mind and decided not to grab the oil after achieving a stunning success on the battlefield?

Nostradamus

Mon May 4 2009 12:49

I would support Ron Paul for 2012, but the world's going to end in that December anyway and he'd never get into office. Too bad.

Frank Sinatra

Fri May 1 2009 14:38

I mocked, because all of the truthers' various evidence been discredited over and over again. Thermite has been discredited. Molten metal has been discredited. Freefall has been discredited. Explosions within the building has been discredited. Why should I, someone with no actual engineering or architectural experience, attempt to do individually tear down these conspiracy theories when so many smarter and better-qualified people have done so before me?

And yes, my Iraqi hijacker tangent is speculative. My point is that it simply doesn't make sense for the government, which allegedly orchestrated the largest terrorist attack in history as an inside job, to slip up on the nationalities of its alleged perpetrators.

Ok, you got me. They selected 15 Saudi Arabians on purpose. The United States government and their wealthy Jewish backers were specifically covering their asses, because they knew that I, and others of the New World Order, could use this as evidence supporting the official theory eight years down the line on a college newspaper website. You guys were so close to destroying the Zionist conspiracy, but your sleuthing has come to naught. If only we'd elected Ron Paul in 2008. He could have uncovered the damning proof of governmental involvement, hidden under the President's mattress.

Bing Crosby

Fri May 1 2009 10:28

This piece is polemical, but insubstantial. You mocked ("Never mind" ad nauseum) where you could have at least made an attempt to discredit. And you're speculating more than any "conspiracy theory" is when you say things like "If the government wanted to use 9/11 to justify the Iraqi invasion, then they probably would have ______."

Evan Fredericksen

Fri May 1 2009 00:45

If the government wanted to use 9/11 to justify the Iraqi invasion, then they probably would have included at least a few Iraqis as hijackers. Instead, 15 of the 19 were Saudi Arabian, an American ally with a repressive regime whom we didn't even try to touch during the War on Terror.

please clarify

Thu Apr 30 2009 11:37

Never mind that none of the hijackers were Iraqi. - how is this relevant at all??

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out