![[FSF
Associate Member]](http://www.modspil.dk/images/fsfMembergetButton.png){kind=small}
Konspirationsteoretisk
DR2 genudsendte i går deres tema-aften Konspirationernes Tid, som var en udmærket gennemgang af diverse konspirationsteorier fra Kennedy-mordet over 11. september til påstanden om, at VM i fodbold i 1958 i virkeligheden slet ikke fandt sted.
Mht. 11. september har jeg tidligere skrevet lidt om, hvordan jeg selv ser på disse ting. Udsendelsen var god, fordi den lod konspirationsteoretikerne fremsætte deres teorier, og lod deres modstandere gendrive dem så godt de kunne, således at alle måtte siges at have fået en fair behandling.
Det mest overbevisende og sympatiske indtryk gjorde Benjamin Chertoff fra tidsskriftet Popular Mechanics, hvor de havde observeret, at alle teorier om, at den amerikanske regering i virkeligheden selv stod bag angrebet 11. september byggede på tekniske og videnskabelige argumenter, især indenfor ingeniørkunst og fysik.
Ifølge Chertoff var de overraskede over deres resultater - de havde forventet, at konspirationsteoretikerne ville have ret i i hvert fald nogle af deres påstande.
I stedet fandt de ud af, at alle de tekniske og faktuelle påstande, der har været fremført for, at den amerikanske regering i virkeligheden selv stod bag angrebet var forkerte.
Dette kunne de dokumentere i en otte sider lang artikel, som var resultatet af ni journalisters arbejde i fire og en halv måned. Artiklen bygger som sagt på en nøgtern undersøgelse af fakta og er derfor rigeligt værd at læse for enhver tvivler.
F.eks. hedder det om en af de mere udbredte påstande, nemlig at det skulle have været et missil (og ikke et fly), der ramte Pentagon:
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."Jeg har et tillægsspørgsmål: Hvis den amerikanske regering selv stod bag angrebet på Pentagon og udførte det ved hjælp af et missil - hvorfor i alverden skulle de så bagefter finde på at påstå, det var et fly? Det giver ingen mening, for:The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
Det ville i så fald være meget nemmere, enklere og sikrere at erklære, at det var et missil - en så kolossal løgn ville trods alt repræsentere en helt unødig risiko for at blive afsløret.
Og hvis det i virkeligheden var et missil, der ramte Pentagon, hvad blev der så af flyet og de passagerer, der var om bord? Osv., osv. - som sagt, konspirationsteorierne giver ingen mening, hvis man graver blot en lille smule i dem.
Men ... læs blot artiklen i Popular Mechanics - det er, som sagt, en grundig og teknisk set ganske interessant gennemgang af denne afgørende historiske begivenheds faktuelle og videnskabelige aspekter.