Archive for the '9/11' Category

Fisking Fisk

It’s perhaps something of a clichéd observation, but whenever someone clears their throat by appending “I’m not a racist, but…” to the start of their sentence, you can be all but sure that a racist remark of some kind or another will follow. In a similar vein, Robert Fisk claims that he’s “not a conspiracy theorist” in today’s Independent, and then goes on to perform a flawless impersonation of one. In my experience (and that of many rationalists), conspiracy theorists have a habit of claiming that they’re “just asking questions”; this term is then abbreviated, by said rationalists, to “JAQ” and further corrupted to form its own neologism: “JAQing off”. This undeniably pejorative colouration is due to the fact that the questions the conspiracy theorists are “just asking” are usually of the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” variety. Fisk’s are no different.

If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time?

This particular question serves as a classic example. Firstly, note the internal confusion over whether the steel is supposed to have melted or snapped: He begins by talking about the temperatures of the fires and the melting point of steel and finishes by asking how the “steel beams” (I think he means columns) could “snap through at the same time”. However, the two don’t appear to have any obvious and necessary connection. Secondly, he misleadingly places undue significance on the role of the kerosene itself: While kerosene-like Jet A-1 fuel undoubtedly accelerated the fires in the towers, it was not the only substance fuelling them; once they had taken hold, they had an abundance of office contents and aircraft wreckage available to work on. Thirdly, the question serves to straw man the position it purports to interrogate: No one is claiming that all of the columns snapped at the same time. Nor are they claiming that any of the steel melted. The following is from the National Institute of Standards and Technology FAQ on the collapse:

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

One might be excused for thinking that Fisk should have made at least a passing attempt to familiarise himself with the basics of the subject matter – perhaps by having actually read the above – before putting pen to paper.

They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.

This claim is particularly odd. The following is again from the National Institute of Standards and Technology FAQ:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

It seems that Fisk (or the conspiracy theorist who deceived him) has taken these figures and deducted a second from each for good effect. In doing so, however, he’s caused himself something of a problem. Even in a vacuum (in other words, unimpeded even by air-resistance), the time it would have taken for an object to fall from the roofs of the towers to the ground is 9.22 seconds. So, we can see from the off that Fisk’s lower figure of 8.1 seconds is simply physically impossible. Further, it’s important to note the wording of the NIST quotation. The figures they cite are the “elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated”; they are not the total times for the collapses of the entire structures.

What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September?

World Trade Centre 7 did not collapse in 6.6 seconds. Conspiracy theorists arrive at this figure by timing only the collapse of the visible exterior (the façades, etc.) of the building.  They ignore the fact that the collapse had initiated some eight seconds prior when the east mechanical penthouse began to sink into the main superstructure. Further, the building did not fall into its own footprint: The collapse caused significant damage to surrounding structures such as 30 West Broadway and The Verizon Building, and minor damage to several others.

Incidentally, World Trade Centre 7 was also known as The Salomon Brothers Building. Personally, I’ve never heard of “The Salmon Brothers Building”. Perhaps it’s a Fish ‘n’ Grill.

Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it?

Indeed, World Trade Centre 7 was not hit by an aircraft. It was hit, however, by a collapsing 110-storey skyscraper. It then suffered approximately eight hours of widespread fires. It’s rather odd that Fisk simply failed to mention those rather important contributory factors.

The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC7.

Well, I suppose that Fisk must have applied his structural engineering expertise to the interim report on the collapse and concluded that it’s not really a report at all. Further, the final version of this report is due for release later this year. The investigators are indeed taking their time over it, but I imagine this is because they are dedicated professionals who actually care about getting things right.

Journalistically, there were many odd things about 9/11. Initial reports of reporters that they heard “explosions” in the towers – which could well have been the beams cracking – are easy to dismiss. Less so the report that the body of a female air crew member was found in a Manhattan street with her hands bound.

I have to admit to being somewhat unsure of the point Fisk is trying to make. Presumably, we’re to conclude that the idea that the terrorists might have handcuffed a flight attendant is absurd – so absurd that the existence of a massive conspiracy is at least comparably likely. (Let’s not forget that said terrorists are believed to have murdered individual passengers and crew while initiating the hijackings.)

OK, so let’s claim that was just hearsay reporting at the time, just as the CIA’s list of Arab suicide-hijackers, which included three men who were – and still are – very much alive and living in the Middle East, was an initial intelligence error.

This is a tactic Fisk applies liberally throughout the article; it’s the rhetorical equivalent of humming the theme music from The X-Files: He raises and then superficially dismisses a number of supposed anomalies in the official narrative – presumably with the intention of fostering further suspicion without actually having to commit himself to the fallacious claim in question. One might call this the passive aggressive school of conspiracy theory.

I suppose it could be considered poetically appropriate that the “Some of the terrorists are still alive” canard just won’t die. The claim generally stems from this BBC article, which has since been superseded; the uncertainty in question seems to have originated from cases of mistaken identity. From a more recent article:

The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.
We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

Fisk then goes on to cast suspicion on lead hijacker Mohammed Atta’s final religious writings; we’re informed that Fisk’s Middle-Eastern Muslim acquaintances are mystified by them. Well, that doesn’t seem all that suspicious to me. I suspect that Atta’s religious justifications for murdering three-thousand innocent people might leave them scratching their heads, as well. To be frank, I’d be rather concerned if his final thoughts didn’t confound a Muslim or two.

Now that the specifics are out of the way, allow me to indulge in some conspiratorial thinking of my own: According to one Robert J. Hanlon, one should “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”. Wise words though they are, Hanlon’s Razor, as it is known, only goes so far. It just doesn’t seem particularly feasible, for instance, to think that an experienced journalist like Fisk could have written such a straightforwardly error-ridden and innuendo-laden article due to incompetence alone. Further, he’s also reasonably well known for both fostering and manifesting a Westerner’s self-loathing of the most wretched kind. So, it seems at least possible that Fisk wrote this piece for purely ideological reasons: To spread misinformation and doubt about the core premise for some of the United States’ least popular actions – to groundlessly and cynically call 9/11 itself into question.


Monbiot on Moonbats: Screw Loose Change

I seem to take something of a guilty pleasure in the anatomical study of conspiracy theories. Maybe it’s because their proponents espouse phenomenological explanations that are, shall we say, unnecessarily intricate. William of Occam would be turning in his grave. So much so that perhaps “turning” isn’t even the right word. He’d be performing rapid summersaults like a particularly ill-managed foosball mannequin. Any trace of reason or epistemological sobriety being expelled in dark trails by the overwhelming centrifugal forces. Apropos the vehicle for this gratuitously macabre metaphor, George Monbiot has written a couple of good articles in the Guardian this month. “A 9/11 Conspiracy Virus is Sweeping the World” where he takes conspiracy documentary Loose Change to task and the perhaps marginally more resolute “9/11 Fantasists Pose a Mortal Danger to Popular Oppositional Campaigns” from todays edition. Here’s a bit from the former:

There is a virus sweeping the world. It infects opponents of the Bush government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots. First cultivated in a laboratory in the US, the strain reached these shores a few months ago. In the past fortnight, it has become an epidemic. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this sickness, eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me. The disease is called Loose Change.

And the latter:

“You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the new world order … bought and paid for.” “Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and special branch recruit agents?” “Shill, traitor, sleeper”, “leftwing gatekeeper”, “accessory after the fact”, “political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all”.

These are a few of the measured responses to my article, a fortnight ago, about the film Loose Change, which maintains that the United States government destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Having spent years building up my leftwing credibility on behalf of my paymasters in MI5, I’ve blown it. I overplayed my hand, and have been exposed, like Bush and Cheney, by a bunch of kids with laptops. My handlers are furious.

Those last few paragraphs perhaps betray sympathy with Maddox’s view of the matter; but for less glib accounts of what’s wrong with the conspiracy theories “The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective” from Skeptic Magazine and “Debunking the 9/11 Myths” from Popular Mechanics are actually really interesting in themselves.

Stay mental, yeah?

P.S: I have to admit to blatantly nicking the subtitle of this post from the Screw Loose Change website. I couldn’t resist. It works on two levels!

What is Slavoj Žižek up to in the Guardian?

I’ve unfortunately just read a Guardian article called “On 9/11, New Yorkers Faced the Fire in the Minds of Men” by Slavoj Žižek
and thought it was cobblers. Here are some bits I disliked marginally more than the other bits.

This lack of “cognitive mapping” is crucial. All we see are the disastrous effects, with their cause so abstract that, in the case of WTC, one can easily imagine exactly the same film in which the twin towers would have collapsed as the result of an earthquake. What if the same film took place in a bombed high-rise building in Beirut? That’s the point: it cannot take place there. Such a film would have been dismissed as “subtle pro-Hizbullah terrorist propaganda”. The result is that the political message of the two films resides in their abstention from delivering a direct political message. It is the message of an implicit trust in one’s government: when under attack, one just has to do one’s duty.

Now, the important phrase here is “would have been dismissed as”. For all I know, Žižek could be perfectly correct in this, such a film could well have been dismissed in such a way (although dismissed by whom is rather unclear). But we can’t safely infer from this that said dismissal would necessarily be a valid one. Nor can we infer that since an apolitical film about a Beirut bombing would have been dismissed as propaganda then a similarly apolitical film about 9/11 actually is propaganda. And if by abstaining from delivering a political message, a film about 9/11 delivers a political message anyway, then it would be impossible for such a film not to deliver a political message. This, although seemingly quite debatable in itself, may be exactly what Žižek is trying to say. But it makes me wonder why he didn’t just come out and say it. Perhaps it’s because without a cognitive association with the insidious veiling of political messages which subliminally program their audience to unquestioningly obey the whole thing seems rather more benign.

This is where the problem begins. The omnipresent invisible threat of terror legitimises the all-too-visible protective measures of defence. The difference of the war on terror from previous 20th-century struggles, such as the cold war, is that while the enemy was once clearly identified as the actually existing communist system, the terrorist threat is spectral. It is like the characterisation of Linda Fiorentino in The Last Seduction: most people have a dark side, she had nothing else. Most regimes have a dark oppressive spectral side, the terrorist threat has nothing else.

Seemingly then the threat of terror is invisible. Furthermore it is spectral. Now I would think that the most charitable reading of this would be that the threat of terror is difficult to obtain a holistic picture of or something like that. Fair enough. Even though by using that term we may unfortunately create an association with the things of superstition – ghosts and spooks – i.e. stuff that doesn’t exist. But (of course!) I’m not one to be pedantic – so, sure, OK, fine. But to also directly contrast the threat of terror with something you make a specific point of describing as “actually existing” doesn’t seem to leave much room for misinterpretation – the threat of terror doesn’t exist. That would explain it being invisible then I suppose. And what is that comparison at the end trying to say? What does he even mean by “terrorist threat” anymore? Perhaps Žižek has simply lapsed into poetry. Who knows.

The power that presents itself as being constantly under threat and thus merely defending itself against an invisible enemy is in danger of becoming a manipulative one. Can we really trust those in power, or are they evoking the threat to discipline and control us? Thus, the lesson is that, in combating terror, it is more crucial than ever for state politics to be democratically transparent. Unfortunately, we are now paying the price for the cobweb of lies and manipulations by the US and UK governments in the past decade that reached a climax in the tragicomedy of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, the enemy are no longer non-existent but merely invisible again. Does he actually mean “non-existent” by “invisible” now? Errr, hard to tell. But one thing we can apparently know for sure is that any power fighting such an enemy is in danger of becoming manipulative. Presumably by “danger” he means “relatively real danger” and by “manipulative” – Machiavellian? Up to a point? I’d best go with that. So – is such a power in that kind of danger? Well I don’t really know but I suppose it could be, yes – if and only if we’re talking about a genuinely fictional enemy – and so far the only way Žižek’s managed to get that idea into the equation is through semantic slight of hand. Talking of which – what does that “thus” think it’s playing at? “Can we really trust those in power? Thus we must have this!” I mean, it’s bit odd to put a “thus” directly after a question. Well, if we think Žižek has put forward a strong enough case already (and frankly, who wouldn’t?) one might just take that question to be rhetorical. It’s difficult to tell specifically which lies and manipulations constitute this “cobweb” or why it’s parsimonious to think of them (and their climax) as such and not just fucking stupid mistakes but anyway every tip has an iceberg. Consequents affirmed while you wait.

Recall August’s alert and the thwarted attempt to blow up a dozen planes on their way from London to the US. No doubt the alert was not a fake; to claim otherwise would be paranoiac. But a suspicion remains that it was a self-serving spectacle to accustom us to a permanent state of emergency.

So, we’ve established that to doubt the authenticity of last Augusts alerts would be paranoiac, but – a suspicion remains! Presumably then suspicion can only remain in the minds of the paranoid, for how can you not foster any doubt about an authenticity yet still be suspicious of it? But what a weird thing to say! The minds of the paranoid are suspicious about all kinds of things – the authenticity of the moon landings, whether governments are really comprised of humans and not reptilians from another world, mind controls devices and so on. It wouldn’t be prudent to go around mentioning whenever paranoid people are suspicious of something, so why has it been mentioned here? Perhaps Žižek wished to smuggle in some evidence-free credibility to the idea that the August alerts were a conspiracy while leaving himself some (but seemingly not enough) wiggle-room for denial were the issue ever raised. Perhaps not – but a suspicion remains.

What space for manipulation do such events – where all that is publicly visible are the anti-terrorist measures themselves – open up? Is it not that they simply demand too much from us, the ordinary citizen: a degree of trust that those in power lost long ago? This is the sin for which Bush and Blair should never be forgiven.

Well hold on. Let’s first be clear that the “events” in question here are not fake security alerts. Although you’d be forgiven for thinking they were seeing as how it followed so swiftly on from that hand-wave of a previous sentence. So – what space for manipulation do such events open up? I’ll try not to dwell too much on yet another claim of terrorisms apparent “invisibly” being loaded into the question because I’m nice like that. And because mercifully, Žižek then chooses to break with habit and answers with a moment of unparalleled crystal-clarity. Yeah. Fat chance.

September 11 is the symbol of the end of this utopia, a return to real history. A new era is here with new walls everywhere, between Israel and Palestine, around the EU, on the US-Mexico and Spain-Morocco borders. It is an era with new forms of apartheid and legalised torture. As President Bush said after September 11, America is in a state of war. But the problem is that the US is not in a state of war. For the large majority, daily life goes on and war remains the business of state agencies. The distinction between the state of war and peace is blurred. We are entering a time in which a state of peace itself can be at the same time a state of emergency.

Is he saying that walls on national boarders like the Spain/Morocco one are examples of apartheid or isn’t he? Don’t know. But unless he’s referring to any other apartheids that have sprung up both since and because of 9/11 I guess he must be. I suppose strengthening boarder security could be thought of as a “new form of apartheid” but only if you somewhat arbitrarily redefined the term. He could have used a more appropriate word, but then again that would have come at the expense of losing all the precious rhetoric that “apartheid” carries. Besides, it wasn’t like Mexicans were allowed to merrily waltz into the US or Moroccans into Spain before these walls went up. But anyway – just because George Bush goes around using a lot of scary quasi-fundamentalist rhetoric (which no one has to convince me he does, and you can take it from me, it’s hardly admiration for the current US government that motivated this post) this doesn’t give us logical carte blanche to wilfully misinterpret any old thing he says in order to bolster our own arguments. Two wrongs don’t make a right and all that. When there is talk of a “state of war [with terrorists]”, I’d have thought the most charitable way to take it is in a more metaphorical sense, like the “war on drugs”. In using that term, obviously no one’s trying to make us believe that submarines piloted by Heroin are approaching, that crack is trying to annex part of Guernsey or that we must permit the government to look in all our bums whenever they feel like it for our own protection. It simply means “we are emphatically against drugs/terrorists and we are going to fight them”. Now, in the name of said state of war freedoms might well be getting frustrated to a worrying degree; possibly even with sinister aims – but I’m not about to go into all that now. And in claiming a state of war exists Bush is undoubtedly guilty of rhetorical low-redefinition but this isn’t good reason to think that he is trying to conjure-up some sort of Orwellian phantom war in order to keep the population receiving the face stamping treatment – forever (or for any other duration for that matter). Nor does it seem very sensible to try to attach to his statement that rather contrived “emergency/peace” bit of quasi-doublethink. Now Žižek may genuinely not have intended to say any such thing. But again it’s hard to say as he doesn’t seem to be a great fan of simply saying what’s on his mind. And I wonder why that might be.

Now if you wanted to present an argument in favour of a conspiracy theory, why would you use a whole load of equivocation, sly-winking implication and plain old dishonesty to try to con people into believing you? Why wouldn’t you at least have the balls to just say what you meant? Perhaps because you’d fool less of the people less of the time? Well that’s ironic.

About 26h

This site is written by Ed and Jim and occasionally others.


“I'd like to nominate as the most boring weblog ever.” – Fenriq (Metafilter)