Debunking the 9\/11 conspiracy theory\u00a0<\/p>\n
Name<\/p>\n
Course<\/p>\n
Tutor<\/p>\n
Date <\/p>\n
Debunking the 9\/11 conspiracy theory\u00a0<\/p>\n
Since the 9\/11 attack and the subsequent investigations, several theorists have come up with divergent views and analysis aimed at putting together pieces of information on what could have triggered and guided the fatal attack. The theorists however differ on their analogies and logical conclusion as to who was responsible for the attack. Specifically, there have been emergence of a controversial argument that attempts to allude existence of collusion between the Americans and the foreign terrorist in planning and execution of the 9\/11. largely refereed to as the conspiracy theory, the proponents argue that the Americans especially the government had hidden agenda that so it conspire with the attackers ostensibly to gain international support for fight against perceived enemies, to justify the foreign invasions such as the case of Iraq and Afghanistan and to gain access to the Arab oil. Some theorists fully credit the government with the attack (Grossman, 1). However, the explanation given by the theorists do not add up or have credible back up to support the claims. <\/p>\n
The proponents of the conspiracy theory argue that the attack was not carried out by passenger plane but by military jets and missiles. This argument has no tangible evidence to support it based on two major facts. One, the planes that were officially reported to have been used by the hijackers to launch the attack has never been traced. put differently, the planes have never reached their destinations as scheduled. This support the official report that the hijacked passenger planes were used in the operation. Two, the recovered cockpits at the scene clearly endorse the official report as they belonged to the planes in question. The forensic investigations have also proven the fact that cockpit details march those of the commercial airlines. <\/p>\n
The lack of total military intervention sanctioned by the government has been described as a weighty evidence of conspiracy and insider job (Mole, 1). Facts from the military show that there were 14 military planes to offer sky protection in the US on that date. At the same time, the NORAD did not receive signals indicating any mishap to warrant a military response. Additionally, when the military got information about the missing planes, it was so late that the damage had been done. For example, FAA contacted NEADS at 9.41 am about the situation, the same time when the plane hit the WTC. Demystification of the conspiracy theory also emanates from the fact that the NEADS failure to act as claimed by the conspiracy theorists is that the military intervention launched was aimed at ensuring that the US was safe from external and not internal attack. This military mistake gave the hijackers a leeway to force the planes into the targeted buildings. It is therefore subjective to argue that the attack was engineer by the government which later failed to alert the responsible military agents. <\/p>\n
The nature and magnitude of the WTC destruction from 78th to 110th floors and the destruction of the elevators as well as the buildings basement has been described as far much a bigger damage that the commercial planes could have caused. The argument is that the explosion and nature of the damage hint at a conspiracy. As such, the destruction could have been caused deliberately by \u201csubstances or devices,\u201d that might have been in the building before the aircraft impact (Mackey, 10). For example, there could have been explosives planted early at the building. The FEMA\u2019s report rule out existence of conclusion bombs in the building. However, the widespread destruction might have been caused by explosions occasioned by the fuel. As a result, the fire triggered electric fire that badly damaged the building. At the same time, the fuel jet fire though could not cause steel melt; the impact of the explosion was hard enough to interfere with the building\u2019s structural strength thus resulting into the collapse. At the same time, the buying had other combustible materials that could have intensified the heat capacity beyond the jet fuel heating point. <\/p>\n
Conclusively, the conspiracy theorists base their claims on sloppy researches that have no scientific or provable evidences (Debunking911, 16). It is therefore evident that their arguments have been based on misinformed sources and illegal reasoning that do not add up. <\/p>\n
Works Cited <\/p>\n
Debunking911 Debunking 9\/11 Conspiracy Theories. Journal of Debunking 9\/11 <\/p>\n
Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1, (2006). <\/p>\n
Grossman, L. Why the 9\/11 Conspiracy Theories Won’t Go Away. (2006). Accessed June <\/p>\n
28, 2010: http:\/\/www.time.com\/time\/magazine\/article\/0,9171,1531304,00.html<\/p>\n
Mackey, R. Evidence for Controlled Deception: A Long List of Observations – Part I<\/p>\n
On Debunking 9\/11 Debunking. (2007). Accessed June <\/p>\n
28, 2010:http:\/\/www.jod911.com\/drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf<\/p>\n
Mole, T. 9\/11 Conspiracy Theories; The 9\/11 Taith Movement in Perspective SKEPTI, <\/p>\n
Vol. 12, No. 4(2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Debunking the 9\/11 conspiracy theory\u00a0 Name Course Tutor Date Debunking the 9\/11 conspiracy theory\u00a0 Since the 9\/11 attack and the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36098","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n