Why the 9/11 Commission Only Fueled Conspiracy Theories

I take great umbrage at Quassim Cassam, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Warwick in Coventry, who, writing in Aeon, blames the intellectual character of conspiracy theorists for what many non-believers call misguided beliefs. I submit that it is a glaring omission of the 9/11 Commission that fueled their beliefs with regard to 9/11; i.e., they never addressed the issue of why the building even came down. This led many to come up with a theory that bombs were planted and were detonated when the planes hit. Professor Cassam has the audacity to blame the shortcomings of intellect on the part of conspiracists. No, Professor, the absence of pertinent official explanations is to blame.

I was fortunate to have heard somewhere that the buildings came down because the extreme heat of burning airplane fuel melted or deformed the bolts that were holding onto a floor where a plane "landed." That floor came down or pressed down on the floor below. The bolts holding on to the floor below would not sustain the extra weight of the floor above and began to pancake and, in a vertical dominoes fashion, worked their way downwards. This was perfectly reasonable to me; but why wasn't it addressed by the Commission?

The objective of the report was, presumably, to prevent future occurrences--was it not? Yes, tracking down intelligence failures and the ins and outs of Al-Qaida's modus operandi were legitimate concerns but so was a determination of why the buildings fell in the first place and a recommendation regarding future construction.* 

There is not one word in the reports addressing this. I hesitate to say "one word" because the commissioners left out one characteristic needed in such a book: a goddamned index! So, I had to rely on their opening statement and on the table of contents, to come to that conclusion. I was not about to read a report that, in my mind, was flawed from the start--if not in inaccuracies then in researcher friendliness. Yes, the Professor can call me lazy but I saw nothing in the table of contents that hadn't been beaten to a pulp by the Media--for me, it would have been masochistic to read it.

Now, the conspiracy theorist who has no access to official explanations takes off and tries to come up with his own explanations. There is nothing of poor intellect in someone trying to come up with an explanation when he does not encounter the pertinent facts. I, myself, may have bought into the bomb theory if serendipitously I had not come across an explanation that my mind could accept. Where were these facts to be found by the average person. The Media? I don't remember them saying anything about bolts failing--if they did, they mostly concentrated on telling us about the terrorists. Would I find it in the professional journals? Possibly but if I wanted to read journals, I'd have to mosey on down to a major university library or be prepared to give money to the greedy publishers online (that's something that the good Professor does not have to contend with, btw).

One other tidbit mentioned in the Media was that the terrorists were careful to fly planes that still had plenty of jet fuel on board. However, were they thinking of melting bolts or was it just easier to commandeer domestic planes? We may never know because people like the Professor are so quick to blame the intellect of others not knowing what information they were relying on. By the way, I noticed that he did not counter the "planted bomb" theory with any bona fide information; merely exhibiting the usual pretentiousness of an intellectual "elite" but it is understandable for he wrote only to maintain the status quo of the powers that be. Read the report, Professor, let me know what it says about planted bombs or any other failure mechanisms.

The 9/11 report's only purpose was to shed light on the heinous boogeyman so that "we don't forget." If I had chaired the Commission, you know damn well that I would have addressed every conspiracy theory then available. But alas, Governor Kean of New Jersey was stuck in jingoist mode. Would the Professor have addressed the conspiracies or would he just have given us a history lesson; and, a one-sided one at that because, imho, those terrorists didn't surface because Allah whispered in their ears to attack the World Trade Center. I hate being an apologist for anyone but when the shoe fits, I feel compelled to wear it; although I'm careful not to delve too deeply in matters that require scholarly work spanning possibly decades. I just know tidbits like oil, Israel, and nation-building of one ilk or another; and, that's enough for one like me who has grown accustomed to living with government lies--WMDs anyone?

I had a tool that President Obama perverted when he made his "We the People" website. In my version, I proposed that citizens ask the Government a question or state a grievance. Prior to an official presentation to government, opposing viewpoints would be allowed. There would have been a back and forth dialectic to get at the validity of the issue. I can envision someone saying, "we planted bombs at WTC" and someone responding, " But jet fuel would have been sufficient." Hopefully, that person would have also said that they ran tests using jet fuel and the "actual bolts from 9/11."

*I don't like to place blame on individuals but, really, you mean to tell me that the architects did not realize that the failure of one floor would result in that pancaking effect? If they never conceived of a plane's fuel doing it, could they not have conceived of mini-bombs on the bolts?