Doug's Darkworld

War, Science, and Philosophy in a Fractured World.

Seeing the world as it is

with 11 comments

melted_freeway.jpg
How do the 911 Conspiracists explain this?

Well, apparently a fire can weaken steel and cause a steel reinforced structure to collapse. And if a modest fire can collapse a small structure like this, imagine what a vastly larger fire could do to a vastly heavier structure. Of course there’s no need to imagine, everyone on the planet has seen the images of the twin towers collapsing. Will this change any minds in the so called “911 truth movement?” Nope. That’s the beautiful thing about being in possession of a holy truth, evidence is not relevant. This will no more change the position of the 911 conspiracy true believers than the discovery of Jesus’ grave would make Christians abandon Christianity. Still, if any 911 conspiracists are reading, I and many readers would be curious to hear why this fire isn’t evidence that fire can weaken steel and cause structures like the twin towers to collapse.

There are two other points regarding this traffic accident I would like to make. The first is the inevitable terrorist connection. Thank you Mr Bush, six years of terror mongering has so conditioned the American public that as soon as they hear something go bump in the night, they immediately start salivating like Pavlov’s dogs and scream “terrorism!” The talking heads now are breathlessly claiming that this exposes some sort of new and previously unknown vulnerability to terrorist attacks. Gee, using a gasoline tanker truck as a weapon never occurred to anyone? Modern peaceful industrialized societies have a infinite number of weak points an enemy can attack, it’s not news, and it can’t be fixed without turning the USA into a police state. If you spend all your time worrying about terrorism, go take a Valium.

Secondly, a huge deal is being made about the driver’s checkered past. Dear God, this was an accident. Is there anyone who doesn’t sometimes drive too fast? I have an idea, why don’t we make it so that people with criminal or drug problems in their past can’t drive and can’t be employed anywhere. Then they will have no choice but to re-offend when they get out of prison, we can lock them up again, and we will never have problems like this again. Sigh, this was a traffic accident. There is no global lesson to be learnt here other than “These things happen.” And I’m not saying we can’t learn from accidents, but there’s no need to leap to conclusions or advocate sweeping changes because a truck had an accident.

This is another fine example of something that has become much clearer to me. In the modern world every time there is some high profile event, special interests from governments to corporations to NGOs leap into action to capitalize on it and advocate policy changes they desire. This is because the media makes these events so much more universal, what used to be news from the other side of the continent, is now a shared reality that we all share vicariously. This has become so common that it basically drives much of our national policy, and has led to such things as the “wag the dog” phenomena.

Of course basing policies on isolated high profile events is stupid, but it’s sure made a lot of people and organizations rich and powerful beyond their wildest dreams. Stupid because policies are more and more being based on the narrow self-serving agendas of the small powerful groups that control western countries, including much of the media now. And they are getting much better at this stuff, so our national policies are going to get ever more detached from reality as ever more money is spent on problems that have been blown all out of proportion, or don’t even exist. And of course this process makes it easy to ignore far more pervasive (and damaging) low profile problems like poverty and pollution.

Another way of looking at this “policy by incident” thinking is the Global War on Terror. If another terror attack takes place in the USA, it proves that the GWOT is the correct policy! And as long as no terror attacks take place, why this proves that the GWOT is working and is thus the correct policy! In other words, no matter what happens, the GWOT is the correct policy. A thinking person should be able to see that this is absurd, since any policy could be defended with this sort of argument, yet millions of Americans swallow this “logic” hook line and sinker. The threat of terrorism needs to be examined and dealt with in the context of a vast amount of historical, political, and social context, but policy driven by singular incidents erases the context.

Of course if basic logic were taught in the school systems, false arguments would be much harder to get people to swallow. I would speculate why it almost never is, but it’s too depressing. What I can do is suggest that people study this site: Logic & Fallacies

(The above image of the Oakland maze after the fire and collapse is claimed as Fair Use under US copyright law. It is central to illustrating the post, it has been scaled down, and it is not being used for profit. Credit: Chronicle/Mark Constantini)

Written by unitedcats

May 2, 2007 at 9:47 am

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. GBOT as Bush is fighting is a never ending war. Invading Iraq, Afghanistan has done nothing good or positive to fight terrorism. These wars has increased the level of violence, given new life to Al Qaeda.

    The conspiracy theories are the result of Bush regime who had put lid on all the evidence in the name of national security. There will be no conspiracy simply if they publish the facts that Al Qaeda was involved in twin towers attacks. There is no source available from where I can verify this independently.

    Quran Bible

    May 2, 2007 at 10:45 am

  2. First time here but I think I’ll be a regular.

    You think loud and clear and that’s rare today.

    I’ll also agree with the previous commentator on GWOT reviving and strengthening terrorism and, most importantly, its supporting basis.

    zerog

    May 2, 2007 at 12:12 pm

  3. I’m not a big conspiracy theorist, but I see some differences between this bridge collapsing and the events of 9/11.

    Sure, fire weakens steel. However, this was a very hot fire (I think some estimates were over 2000 degrees). That might explain the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, but what about the 47 story tower that collapsed later from a fire? It wasn’t hit by a jetliner, and therefore not full of fuel or anything to make it burn that hot.

    All three buildings collapsed almost perfectly into their own footprints, with very little damage to surrounded structures. That’s a pretty amazing feat for 267 floors of structures. This bridge looks like a hot mess!

    I’m not an engineer and certainly don’t claim to have the answers, but I do have lots of questions. I don’t always accept the official answers, either. ;)

    Brian

    May 2, 2007 at 12:43 pm

  4. Very good point Brian never actually looked that way. Bush mafia I don’t trust. You are intelligent person.

    Quran Bible

    May 2, 2007 at 12:48 pm

  5. Huge buildings can ONLY collapse into their own footprints, there’s no way to apply the kind of sideways force necessary to get that much mass to do anything else. And debris from the towers collapsing did in fact seriously damage nearby structures, including WTC7 which also collapsed some hours later. I agree though that there are serious problems with 911, but they regard the proof as to who actually hijacked the planes and who knew what and when they knew it, but the physics of the actual collapse are well understood. At least from my readings. :)

    unitedcats

    May 2, 2007 at 12:49 pm

  6. Doug,

    I can accept your reasoning. I trust you that you will not lie to win arguement. My respect and regards for your open minded approach.

    Quran Bible

    May 2, 2007 at 12:58 pm

  7. Stop playing this game of arguing over conspiracy theories. It isn’t open to argument, it’s a matter of confirmable fact.

    Who murdered Mychal Judge?

    Let’s begin there.

    If Osama Bin Laden is responsible for this, charge him with murder. Let’s have a trial. That’s how we do things in America.

    whig

    May 2, 2007 at 6:45 pm

  8. I agree that debating 911 conspiracy theories is moot at this point, though still interesting. Unfortunately this is not how the Bush administration does things. The Taliban offered to deal with the Bush Administration’s claims in accordance with international law, IE if we presented them with a proper extradition warrant, they would turn Osama over to the US for trial. Bush instead gave them an ultimatum that no sovereign country would agree to, and invaded when they didn’t comply. Not that it would have helped, Saddam did comply with Bush’s demands, and got invaded anywise.

    unitedcats

    May 2, 2007 at 7:14 pm

  9. Doug, so we remove the administration and then proceed with the trial if they won’t do things properly. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

    whig

    May 2, 2007 at 7:21 pm

  10. No argument there, I have advocated all along that 911 should have been treated as a crime, not an act of war.

    unitedcats

    May 2, 2007 at 8:16 pm

  11. This is what I said on April 23, 2007.

    http://quranbible.wordpress.com/2007/04/23/iraq/

    Quran Bible

    May 3, 2007 at 9:05 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: