The Truth is Out There...WAY Out There!

I'm not much of a conspiracy buff. I'm not much for trusting the government not to engage in chicanery and/or subterfuge, either. Given the history relative to governmental honesty, I think anyone who believes anything the government says without a very healthy skepticism is probably someone who shouldn't be allowed out by themselves. The willingly gullible make excellent pawns.
I was watching the History Channel last night when a program came on called "9-11 Conspiracy Theories: Fact or Fiction?" I thought that, since this wasn't Faux News Channel, this would be a balanced look at the events surrounding 9-11 and that some of the wild, goofy theories surrounding that day would be debunked with evidence to the contrary.

I HAVE RARELY BEEN MORE WRONG!

First, let's lay the groundwork. I'm sure we can all agree that it doesn't take an event more momentous than a pigeon flying into a ceiling fan to bring out the lunatic fringe. Before you can say "the aliens probed me!" there are crackpots on every street corner claiming that the CIA used holographic technology to make the ceiling fan look like a statue or that they used LSD to brainwash the pigeon or whatever. Unfortunately, these poor, misguided, undermedicated trolls are the people most sought after by the media. This practice of selective reporting is often encouraged by the government, given that they are not actually above brainwashing a pigeon and they want anyone gutsy enough to point this out thouroughly discredited. The best way to do this is to make sure the only people who get camera time are the one-tooth wonders with the foil hats and the chin awash in spittle. I get it. Now, back to the show...
The last televised event I saw that managed to produce so much slant from so little information was the 2004 Republican Convention. There were two groups represented on the program (which is, to be fair, more than I can say for the aforementioned Convention) however, they were treated very differently. Anyone who questioned the official account of what happened on 9-11 was unerringly referred to as a "conspiracy theorist." This is political/mediaspeak for "crackpot" or "loony." Anyone who supported the official story was labeled an "expert." I'm not kidding. Throughout the entire program, whenever they would present something from the side that had questions, the words "conspiracy theory" would appear on the screen. When they presented something from a "debunker," the words "expert response" would appear on the screen. This occurred even when the opposing points of view were being offered by people EQUALLY experienced in their field. If an expert in building engineering said that something didn't look right to him, he was called a conspiracy theorist. Then another expert in building engineering would come on and say that the first expert was unable or unwilling to see the truth. The debunker was always called an expert, never a theorist, conspiracy or otherwise.
Something else that I noticed during the two hours that this insanity went on was that, whenever a so-called conspiracy theorist would expound on what they believe happened, they would follow it up with reasons why. However, when the debunkers would expound on the official story of the events of that day, they would never offer any explanation as to how they drew these conclusions. They would use phrases like "lunatic fringe," "conspiracy nuts" and so on. They didn't hesitate to use language meant to marginalize and dismiss those who question but they never offered any scientific reasoning for their position. When the theorists offered science, like the melting point of steel, it was never addressed by the debunkers. It was as though the question had never come up.
The debunkers even contradicted each other, although the producers of the piece were very careful not to call them on it. At one point, an "expert" said that the reason that the plane didn't make a bigger hole in the Pentagon was because a plane, coming in at that speed, hitting a reinforced structure like that, esentially would turn into "a liquid." (His words.) Less than a minute later, another debunker said that the reason for the unexpectedly narrow field of damage to the building was that the plane had become like "an artillery shell." Now, I've seen artillery shells and I've seen liquid. They neither look nor behave alike. So which is it, guys? If you are going to take on the role of "debunker of myth," may I humbly suggest that you first get your stories straight, so as not to sound more insane than those you so desperately want to marginalize?
No debunker throughout this program offered any science or facts to back up their parroting of the official version of events. At one point, an interviewer (who has likely been fired as a result) forgot his job and actually asked a debunker why the 9-11 Commission Report seemed to avoid tackling some issues relative to what happened in those buildings that day and in fact raised as many questions as it answered. The response? According to the debunker, (and I didn't know this) the 9-11 Commission Report was not "official" and, apparently, our government has never claimed that the contents of said report in any way reflect the official view of the events of that day. I'm sure no one else knew that either, since this administration has referred to it, ad nauseum, as though it were the book of Revelations or something of similar gravity and import. Would that mean that, since the report isn't "official," the administration that treats it like gospel isn't "official" either? Because, I have to tell you, that news would be a comfort. Another thing that has always bothered me about the report of the 9-11 Commission, is that I have seen the investigation of a single-plane crash in bad weather take longer than the 9-11 Commission to reach a conclusion about what happened and who was responsible. That ALONE smells funny to me...
Mind you, when I began watching this program, I was highly skeptical of the so-called conspiracy theories. Historically speaking, there is only one constant when it comes to conspiracy theories. Everyone has their own. If you have 3,000 people screaming CONSPIRACY you will most assuredly have 3,000 theories as to what that conspiracy might be and how it was perpetrated. That doesn't mean they are all automatically baseless. It simply means that, coupled with the media and governmental propensity for only giving airtime to the nutjobs, rather than those who soberly question, it is hard to decide who is closest to the truth and easy to decide that anyone who suggests we take a second look or ask a few questions must be a drooling lunatic.
After observing the unquestioningly obvious slant taken by the producers of this program, as well as the repeated refusal of the "experts" to engage in a scientific discussion on the questions that have been raised, preferring instead to limit themselves to snide comments and personal insults aimed at those who asked questions, it became clear to me that if this show was meant to help this administration silence its critics, it failed miserably. I started the show skeptical of the "conspiracy theorists" and by the time this lopsided parade of arrogance and hubris was over, I was skeptical of the "expert" debunkers. I am positive that was NOT the intent of the producers. Nevertheless, it was the result achieved by the most blatant exercise of biased "reporting" I have seen since Bush stood on the deck of that aircraft carrier and declared "mission accomplished!"
I don't trust anyone who claims the high road of honesty and impartiality, then proceeds to try to make their point, not with facts and proof but through the expedient of degrading and attempting to marginalize with rhetoric those who question that which they refuse to prove. Spare me the hyperbole and unconcealed derision. Replace these transparent ploys with something more substantive, like facts. If you refuse, you make me suspicious. Calling someone a lunatic, even for two hours straight, doesn't prove you are telling the truth. Ducking questions, offering no facts to support your claims, makes you sound like the conspiracy theorist. If I am not supposed to give creedence to the ravings of a conspiracy theorist, then why should I listen to you? All you've had to say, for two whole hours, is, "He's an idiot!" That proves nothing.
Answer the questions. Once and for all. With facts, this time, instead of the name-calling we've been hearing from this administration and its blind supporters for seven long years. Last night, I watched the debunkers dancing so fast it's a wonder their shoes didn't catch fire.
And I was on THEIR side... when the program started.
Good job, people. Now, why don't you try something never before attempted by the American government?
Tell the people the truth.