There is no more dramatic, shocking, or important event to happen during my life in the United States than the tragedy of September 11th. The changes that have come as a result have changed the world forever and affect everyone in some way. And although we can all agree that September 11th was a terrible day, not all of us are sincere in coming to the realization that the official explanations offered as to the collapse of the twin towers and building seven are inadequate. The official explanation of why the buildings collapsed, given by the 9/11 Commission and affirmed by other governmental committees, has become the most widely accepted explanation. But, the physical inconsistencies surrounding the events have led many scientists, architects, and engineers to question the official governmental explanation of the events and demand a new investigation. In addition to the groups of professionals and experts who question the official explanation, the many benefactors that arose out of this tragedy are seen by those who do not accept the official explanation as possible accessories to the crimes of that day. Sadly, when discussing this subject, whether on mainstream news channels or in private conversations with friends, it is almost impossible to question the official story without your views being labeled a “Conspiracy Theory.” And although mainstream thinkers, media personalities, politicians, and others would unreasonably call these formulations “Nothing but a conspiracy theory,” while not dealing with the facts, mainstream explanations and governmental committees have never given acceptable answers to the issues brought up, and fail to accept as valid the many questions still asked and unanswered by the hundreds of victims’ families and the many citizens of this country.
When looking at a criminal trial, one of the most important aspects of the investigation is seeing who benefited from the possible crime, and as a result could have possibly been involved in the crime. Whether or not someone is personal affected by this part of the investigation, it is one of the most important parts and it is imperative that it takes place. In fact, the first people to be questioned in an official crime investigation are those closest to the situation. Searching out the truth is far too important to bypass this step, and too many important decisions will be made based on what we choose to investigate or leave untouched. While many erroneously assume that these steps have ever been taken with 9/11, others know that they haven’t and demand that these steps be taken; regardless of how many years after the attacks it has been. But, the few in America and in the world that demand for these steps to be taken as part of an official investigation are often dismissed as crazy “Conspiracy Theorists,” and their views are lumped in with holocaust deniers, flat Earthers, and the Elvis is still alive group of theorizers.
In America today people use the term “conspiracy theory” as a condescending and obscure way to call those who hold opposing views either dumb, crazy, or both. The term “conspiracy theory” is used by many common people, personalities in mainstream television, and others to describe the most greatly disparaged explanations of events, in order to label an explanation as a crazy concept that is not based in reality. Many people use the term to dismiss ideas, philosophies, and even proven or admitted facts based on the idea that conspiracies or alternative view points are merely “theories.” However, those who take part in these actions do not understanding that any and all responses could be labeled as “conspiracy theories.” Rather than taking the evidence at hand and testing it against all the explanations given, many Americans, out of ignorance, accept anything and everything they’re told by any authoritative figure. Most Americans fail to realize that an explanation is not true because of who affirms or denies it, although that does give an argument more strength. But, an argument is true because it explains what happened with the most reasonable evidence, and it makes use of the unaltered facts.
The majority of Americans, due to different educational and societal paradigms, when confronted with an alternative theory or a different explanation of events that may implicate a person or a group they hold in high esteem, become offended and quickly label the idea a “conspiracy theory.” Sadly, they will denounce facts and dismiss evidence because an explanation has been labeled a kook “conspiracy theory.” At times, they will even rain in insults and defamatory remarks instead of reasonably debating the facts presented. This method of argumentation is known in schools of logic as an ad-hominem attack. An ad-hominem attack is an error in logic where a debater points out character flaws, defames the person directly, or uses insults to make the person seem less credible in order divert the attention from the details of the argument. At different times ad-hominem arguments may be used because different reasons; these include fear, anger, or purposely to distract from the argument. This tactic can be seen being used by many of the United State’s mainstream media personalities, who revel in using this to vilify those they disagree with.
In the case of 9/11, the labeling of alternative explanations as a “conspiracy theory,” has caused a widespread acceptance of the inadequate explanation promoted by the U.S. government of the cause of the collapse of World Trade center buildings one, two, and seven. Recently, I watched a debate between Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas, the creators of the internet sensation Loose Change, and a pair who represented the widely known magazine Popular Mechanics, in a seemingly “David vs. Goliath,” debate. For my benefit and the representatives from Popular Mechanics shame, I could not sum up my case for the negative labeling of a conspiracy theory any clearer. From my personal research, I know how both sides began their investigation into September 11th, and it is very clear that the makers of Loose Change were forced by the facts and the inadequacy of the government’s explanation to point out errors in the official story. On the other hand, from my research, I could see that the two men from Popular Mechanics had preconceived ideas that these film makers were wrong before critically examining their claims and made a decision not to find the facts, but to prove that the two young men wrong. It is important to note that the makers of Loose Change did not begin their investigation with their final documentary production about 9/11; they started out making a Titanic like film about a fictional story taking place in a historical event. Through their research of the timelines, facts, eye witness accounts, and by studying physical laws, they continuously came across anomalies and impossibilities which obligated them raise questions concerning the government’s explanation. However, it is very evident that the team from Popular Mechanics specifically started their research in order to “debunk” what they purposely label “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.” Throughout the entire debate, the two from Popular Mechanics threw out phrases like “this is not a movie,” and things like “the conspiracy theorists always say…,” in an attempt to discredit their opponent’s arguments. In addition to this barrage of ad-hominem attacks, at one point in the debate the two men from Popular Mechanics took an irrelevant and incoherent shot at people who believe in a Biblical account of Creation, implying that they don’t understand the facts and evidence when looking at an explanation. Basically, the two men from Popular Mechanics were saying that their argument was a “God of the gaps,” argument, accusing them of finding “gaps” in the official explanation and being unreasonable. Anyone with even an elementary understanding of logic should be repulsed when seeing the onslaught of fallacies used in an attempt to discredit the two creators of Loose Change; and anyone who has the facts and evidence on their side when debating any topic has no need to call their opponent’s views a “conspiracy theory.” The Popular Mechanics team continuously used straw-man arguments, choosing a weak part of the argument and altering it, to make their opposition look dimwitted in their stance. They constantly attacked and belittled their opposition to make their opponents look ludicrous while they tried to make themselves look intelligent and credible. Someone who understands debating will see that these key words and phrases are tactics used to win an argument without having to present a well founded and coherent argument.
In the specific case of 9/11, many times those debating will never get into the specific details and facts about the argument because of different factors. Many times, the person arguing for the official explanation will use the same tactics the two men from Popular Mechanics used. Many times the individual using these fallacies doesn’t even realize that they are not contradicting the facts. As a result, the debate turns into an argument about the credibility of the people rather than about the explanation of the facts. The lack of understanding by those using these errors in logic leads to endless debating where one side is not willing to contradict the facts and the other side is not able to present their facts without being insulted, demeaned, and/or criticized.
The easiest and laziest ways to avoid facts and gain public support for against your opponents is to call them crazy, call them liars, or call their argument a “conspiracy theory.” If we truly believe the stance we’re arguing for, we have no need to call our detractors names. Yet, we see people in the mainstream media such as; Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and other so-called “conservative” talk radio hosts used these tactics make their opponents look crazy. Not just radio talk show hosts use these tactics, but our own “conservative” president after 9/11 used a similar approach. President George W. Bush stated “We must never tolerate outrages conspiracy theories.” Anytime we see these tactics being used we must question the person using the tactics are saying. But, not only did Bush take this approach, but our current president Barack H. Obama stated “I’m aware that there are some who would question, or even justify the events of 9/11.” Here Obama is clearly telling us to not tolerate theories that may contradict what the government might assert as fact. So, we have our last two presidents, one a democrat and one a republican, telling us to never question what they say, and to never tolerate people who question the events of 9/11. We should never “tolerate” someone calling alternative theories “conspiracy theories” instead of directly contradicting the facts and responding to the real questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment