Which Coincidence Do You Find More Unbelievable?

Recently I wrote a post about Willie Nelson's view that the United States government was behind 9/11. For those of you who missed it, Willie appeared on a national radio show and offered his opinion that the collapse of the twin towers was too controlled to have been brought about by the hijacked airplanes which crashed into them. I thought that these comments placed Willie way out on the fringe. However, apparently Willie is not the only person endorsing conspiracy theories. No sooner had I made my post than I received a comment stating, "I, too, doubt that an airplane crash collasped both towers. I've read respected architectural professional groups that say no way would the buildings fall without exposives planted in them. The conspiracy theory goes that there were fire drills several days before in the buildings and someone had ample time to plant exposives in the stair wells."

Here is why I don't buy the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think it all comes down to which set of coincidences you find to be more unbelievable.

For the conspiracy theorists, the similarity between the collapse of the twin towers and planned demolitions is too great to be coincidence. Because the towers fell straight down, they must have been felled by explosives placed within the buildings at strategic points. My initial reaction is that this is a false comparison. We don't have enough experience with airlines crashing into skyscrapers to know how they are supposed to fall. In fact, we don't have any experience with this phenomenon. Therefore, to try to draw a comparison between something we have experience with (planned demolitions) and something we have no experience with (airlines crashing into skyscrapers) is misleading.

However, let's play along and assume that the comparison is valid enough to raise a question. In order for the conspiracy theory to be probable, there would have to be an entire chain of events leading up to the fatal moment, each of which would have to be more probable than the alternate chain of events.

1. The government would have to have known about Al Qaeda's plans in enough time to plant explosives in the World Trade Towers.

We know that Al Qaeda hijacked airliners and that they crashed into the World Trade towers. According to the conspiracy theory, this event was used as a cover for the actual destruction of the twin towers. Thus, in order for the conspiracy theory to be valid, there would have had to have been advance knowledge of Al Qaeda's plans in enough time to surreptiously plant explosives at strategic points throughout the twin towers. How likely is that? We can't find Osama bin Ladin and we lack sufficient agents with Arab language skills, but we knew enough about Al Qaeda's plans in advance to pull off a major conspiracy. The United States government is simply not that competent.

2. Assuming that we knew about Al Qaeda's plans and intentionally chose not to stop them, why would it have been necessary for our government to blow up the towers?

Hijacking airliners and crashing them into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon was an act of war sufficient to provoke the American people. Even if the twin towers had not been completely destroyed, the reaction of the American people would have been the same. Thus, in order for the conspiracy theory to be likely, the United States government would have had to make a conscious decision to magnify the destructive power of the attack even though this was not necessary to achieve the purposes of the conspiracy.

3. The government would have had to have planted a massive amount of explosives in the World Trade towers without anyone noticing.

According to my commenter, this could have been done during a fire drill prior to the attacks. How likely is that? As someone who has participated in multiple fire drills, I have never seen everyone participate. That means there would have been people left in the building to observe the planting of the explosives, not to mention all of the thousands of people milling around outside the towers. Also, how long does it take to plant explosives? The typical fire drill does not last for hours and hours. However, common sense would indicate that it would take many, many hours to get the explosives in place and conceal them.

4. The government would have had to have maintained secrecy for all these years.

To my knowledge, no one has ever come forward and claimed to have participated in the conspiracy or the subsequent cover-up. However, we all know that the U.S. government is incapable of keeping secrets. That is why we know about Abu Ghraib and various other atrocities committed by the U.S. military in Iraq. In order to pull this off, it would have required secrecy not seen since the Manhattan Project. Since we were not able to achieve complete secrecy for the Manhattan Project, how likely is it that the United States government would have been able to achieve it here?

5. The Bush administration would have to be guilty of high treason on a magnitude never seen before in this country.

If the conspiracy theorists are right, President Bush and his government engaged in an act of war against the American people and should be executed as traitors. While I can believe a lot of things about the Bush administration, I personally, find this impossible to accept. Not only that, but if the Bush administration were as evil as its critics contend, why are we still living in a democratic country where the Bush administration will leave office in 11 months. If George W. Bush was the American Voldemort, he would have suspended the Constitution and declared martial law. Instead, he has sat by while the Democratic party reclaimed control of Congress and will probably regain control of the White House this year.

Conclusion

While I am not inclined toward conspiracy theories to begin with, I find that the series of events which would have had to have occurred for the United States government to be responsible for 9/11 is so improbable that even Oliver Stone would have trouble making the argument with a straight face.