conspiracy
In a rather stunning segment on Hannity and Colmes this evening, the show's hosts, Alan Colmes and Oliver North (sitting in for Hannity) interviewed a professor from the group Scholars for 9/11 'Truth' (scare quotes added by author)- a group of acaemics who advance the theories that, among other things, the government of the United States was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.
Now, these sorts of theories are nothing new- idiots have been peddling them on the internet for quite some time- but to see such a visible group with a member on a major news network is a rather enormous step up. Visitng their website, one finds the usual conspiracy theories- the towers fell too fast (as if thousands of tons of falling debris burning at tremendous tempatures would somehow do anything else but slice through the weak truss structure of the lower floors) that the 'perfect' collapse was somehow accomplished through demolitions (one wonders precisely how the two theories don't contradict one another), among others. On the show, the professor who was interviewed was insistant that Cheney didn't shoot down the Pentagon plane because he wanted it to strike the building. Or that the FBI has "no hard evidence" (presumably beyond the Bin Ladin tape admitting responsibility) that Bin Ladin had anything to do with the incident.
Never mind that, on the technical side, this small group of leftist academics seem to be the only ones to come to these conclusions in the entire country. Never mind that, all in all, it would be an easier theory to peddle without such obvious holes like "explosives brought down the towers".
It has always amused me that the conspiracy theorists- particularly those regarding 9/11- so often take the 'harder' route. Wouldn't it be easire to pin 9/11 on the government by asserting that Mohammed Atta was a government agent, or that the explosion of huge amounts of jet fuel didn't bring the towers down fast enough? By all accounts (including those of Scientific American) the very facts that conspiracy theorists attack are the least questionable. If you're going to be controversial, at least be intelligent about it.
It all points to the danger in adopting extremist views, especially politically. By and large, most conspiracy-peddling individuals do so out of a sincere desire to portray Bush as evil and to undermine things like the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The innate desire to do anything to destory those whose political opinions they so vociferously disagree leads them to genuinely distorted views of factual information.
Again, there is a decidedly paradoxical twist: it is precisely the extremism of many of their views that ultimately cripples their ability to affect change in any real sense of the word. A more moderate approach- often which does nothing to compromise those views that they hold most dear- would be a better approach philosophically and pragmatically. One doesn't need to distort the facts to challenge the President or the Republican party politically, that is, unless you subsribe to the ridiculous notion that they manipulate elections.
Or perhaps you need to distort the facts because you can't win elections because of your extremist views. That, I think, explains more than anything else why someone would peddle these sorts of conspiracy theories.
