English version interventi lettorii 1 2 3 4 Italian version
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: "CONSPIRACY"
SCIENCE AND COMMON SENSE
By Giovanni De Sio Cesari
The problem- Science- Common sense- Conclusion
For many years we have witnessed the refusal of the official reconstruction of the September 11, 2001 attacks : an infinite series of newspapers, videos, films, books and the Internet they talk about the "conspiracy": The theory is introduced in a myriad of contrasting versions , however, they have in common an essential concept: the September 11, 2001 attacks are not imputable to Muslim terrorists but to an inner group in the USA that staged a “dark conspiracy “for their own political ends. The supporters of the conspiracy recognize that the thesis is indeed extreme: however they assert that the facts are not political motivated but from incontrovertible scientific facts : the attacks cannot have taken place according to the official version and therefore anther version must be found. Often it is a supposition or hypothesis it is however far from been clear. The contradiction is not based on a political level but on a scientific one. Therefore it doesn’t openly sustain any other version.
Then we must examine the problem on the scientific plan: therefore we ask what we actually do know. The facts are exceptional ones: they are unprecedented. It has never happened that airliners of that dimension were launched at highest speed against buildings. The effects appear amazing. Two immense skyscrapers collapsed , a fourth airliner disintegrated completely in the impact with the Pentagon. Are effects of this sort possible? The question rises spontaneous. An independent National Commission named by expert specialists in several technical and scientific disciplines answered substantially positive , in an impressive number of technical relations that fills 33 books. It is true that the experts gave for discounted that the cause were those indicated by the authorities and now they had to simply, justify the effects. It is a fact that they did not find compatibility between the causes and the effects . There are a great number of " self- styled “experts” that assert that the effects could not derive from the causes and an other large number of self- styled “expert” that assert that those theories are without foundation. We don’t speak about " self- styled" in derogatory sense but only because of it is very difficult (or impossible) to judge effectively if they are or they are not really the “experts”. The problem therefore is left to the judgment of common people : as an example: is it possible or not possible that an airline of very large dimension can disintegrated completely in the impact with the Pentagon or those effects can derive from a missile. But common people do not have any idea about effects of an impact of an airline or of a missile. Nobody would think to ask the common people to judge if the wings whose airliner was equipped with were capable or not of making it fly: it is a question for specialists. To judge if an impact of that kind is possible or not to disintegrate is a more complex issue and infinitely more controversial one. The expert can advance only hypothesis, but only hypothesis ,I would specify, not incontrovertible certainties. But anyone who has a bachelor degree in engineering a technical diploma, is mechanical worker or and simply read some scientific articles believes to be able and competent. But common sense it is very deceptive in science : the heliocentric hypothesis was far from the evidence of the common sense and the theory of relativity appears still more absurd to the common sense: clearly what appears to be common sense does not have scientific relevance : the essential point of the speech, we think, resides just in this: the common person is called to judge about things he does not have a minimal competence and he belives therefore to accept the scientific theory while ,actually, he is moved only by his political prejudgments. Who is affected by anti-Americanism believes the theory of the conspiracy. He who has confidence in the Americans will reject it with disdain; In either case he will believe to estimate scientific facts while in effects, in both cases is moved only by it’s own political convictions.
It is impossible for common people to resolve the problem on the scientific plan, we think, as well as the specialists: then we can inquire to the facts according to common sense. We do not examine the technical and scientific aspects: we look at the context of the events. We leave out the technical and scientific aspects. We examine what is certain: four airliners were hijacked they disappered with their human cargo of hundreds of people, two buildings amongst the larger in the world collapsed on impact with two airplane, an other airliner is missing almost without leaving a trace.
The Pentagon has been hit from something flying that disintegrated .
According to the official version a group of 18 fanatical Muslims hijacked four airliners , launched two against the twin towers, one against the Pentagon and one would have fallen for the revolt of the passengers. Which are the alternatives version. We examine them in the light of common sense.
1) the landslide of the two towers was not due (only) to the impact of the airliners but to previously hidden explosive: It is not understood the strange reason why two attacks would have been made together. Even without the fall of the Towers the mass media effect would have been enormous. If the airliners could not hit the towers how then can the presence of tons of explosives be justified. Why risk of being discovered in the difficult operation of mining the entire building. In whatever way we look at the matter common sense suggests that it would have been madness, an absurdity.
2) The airplanes that hit the towers were not hijacked but military jet without pilots. But this means that the two airliners hijacked would have had to be hidden, some place and therefore destroyed without a trace, that all the occupants would have to be killed and their bodies made to disappear. Then the airliners immediately after hijacking had been substitutes with other airplane of equal power and largeness without the radars picking up the substitution. These are all operations of such difficulty and complexities that would be unlikely to remained hidden. Even in this case the common sense makes us think how absurd is such hypothesis .
3) the third airliner has not fallen in the place indicated by the authorities: For sure the airplane with all the its human cargo has disappeared: Why would it have been made to disappear? It can instead be thought that it has not fallen for the revolt of the passengers but shot down by a military jet: This hypothesis is not against the common sense: The authorities would have preferred to show heroic Americans bring down the plane rather then shot down by military jets . But in this case the substance of the events would not change: it would have been a Muslim attack and not an inner conspiracy
3) the Pentagon would have been hit by a missile and not by the hijacked airliner.
The common sense then asks where is the airliner that disappeared and why would have been replaced with a missile with the hope, however vague, that the missile could pass for an airliner: It is indeed incredible for the common sense to believe that an attack of such secrecy would have been carried in a way that could have easily being uncovered .At the very list another hypothesis can be considered : the hijacked airliner has been shot down from a missile and that an other missile, for error, hit the Pentagon: the hypothesis seems very remote however it would guarantee the governmental thesis of the Muslim attack and not that one of the inner conspiracy. The alternative hypothesis therefore appears completely impossible when examined with common sense: At best the only hypotheses that would remain possible is that the authorities had not told the whole truth but not a matter of a conspiracy
The reasonableness of the hypothesis of the conspiracy can also be examined in its complex. Let’s admit that an inner group wanted to lead an attack for having a pretext of an armed force intervention or for any reason. It appears clearly to the common sense that the September 11, 2001 attacks appear too complex, very difficult to execute and, above all, they would have needed the complicity of a very, very large number of persons, all things that surely would render their secrecy very difficult to maintain: the conspiracy theory would have surely preferred attacks much easier to execute and to hide. To exemplify: they could provoked outbreaks of explosions in trades centres , trains, publics offices with the dead of thousands of persons, they could have killed the President or other important person , a bomb could have being made to explode in the Senate. All things incomparably easier to hide, feasible with a limited number of persons and not difficult for one powerful organization to operate the event of 11 /9 and to make it pass for a Muslims attacks. Why then embark on a difficult and uncertain enterprise like the September 11, 2001 attack : it would have been contrary to good common sense .
Again why blame extremist Muslims: it would not have been easier and more productive blame Saddam Hussein as the enemy. inasmuch as the country to invade fundamentally was Iraq?
We finally examine the general background .It has never happened that the intelligence agencies have deliberately provoked a great number of victims of Americans citizens : it would be a fact absolutely without precedent in the course of the history not only of the USA but of all the history .
. Instead he is easy to see that the 11/9 has not been the first of the Muslim attacks against Americans citizens and in European country generality: they have been some before with hundred of victims, the same Towers had been object of a previous attack: other attacks have been carry out after. Let’s add that following the news of the attack the fundamentalist Muslim world exploded in unrestrainable manifestations of joy barely controlled by the authorities: obvious sign that corresponded to their way of perceiving the fight against the West: We do not know with certainty if al Qaeda was really directly responsible or not but the fact is that al Qaeda like all other fundamentalist organizations approved the attack it is an indication that it fits in totally with their strategy.
In conclusion we cannot by a scientific point of view exclude perhaps the hypothesis of the conspiracy because in truth we know much too little: however, to a superficial examination like ours the idea of the conspiracy meets many and very great inconsistency that the common sense can easily discard. This obviously does not mean necessarily, that the USA Administration cannot have cultured the occasion of the attack for their own hegemonic ends, or that it has not made other errors in the conduct of its politics. But this is another problem: what we have tried to examine here is whether or not the September 11, 2001 attacks can likely be seen as suspected of an inner conspiracy.