Corrected By Reality

In a previous post I suggested that the conspiracist position on Flight 93 is a contradiction when combined with the “controlled demolition” of the WTC towers. User tanabear believes this needs further explanation: “I fail to see why those claims contradict one another. The Twin Towers were brought down via explosive charges and a plane was shot down. Where is the contradiction?”

First, it’s important to point out that in the 6 years I have been investigating the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11- I have yet to see a coherent explanation for the events- the closest any conspiracist has ever come to trying to explain the “shoot down” of Flight 93 would be Eric Hufschmid in his Penn and Teller interview for the Bullshit episode on conspiracy theories. According to Hufschmid, Flight 93 was some sort of an anomaly with the pre-determined attack. For some inexplicable reason, the pilots of Flight 93 deviated from the attack plan and the military decided that they had to end the attack… for some reason. This obviously makes no sense- but to abandon a conspiracy theory that does not make any sense would be devastating to the entire movement, so they tend to just roll with it. Although Hufschmid has moved down in the ranks of conspiracist movement leaders- his explanation still stands out in a crowd of individuals who are largely silent on the motivation behind a “shoot down” of Flight 93.

To put it simply, why would the military shoot down a plane that it had put there intentionally? More to the point- why would the government then “lie” about this shoot down and claim that they had nothing to do with it? It makes no sense. Had the plane actually been shot down and the government actually took responsibility for it, then it would be consistent with a terrorist attack, and a speedy- if not heroic- response to the impending doom. It does not help the governments case at all to “hide” the shoot down, nor does it help the conspiracists position.

A shoot down of Flight 93, therefore, would have been a legitimate response to the attack on the United States, which contradicts the controlled demolition claim- since a controlled demolition would necessarily have to be an inside job. It’s not necessarily the supposed “shoot down” of Flight 93 that presents a contradiction to the conspiracist narrative, but the supposed cover-up of that “shoot down” that has no coherent purpose. To cover-up a legitimate response contradicts the claim of a cover-up in the first place. This would be no different than if the conspiracists had tried to claim that the government was covering up the terrorist attack and instead claiming that it was individuals who worked inside the Twin Towers- that the planes were some kind of government hologram (a claim that some conspiracists try to make, regardless).

A question I have often posed to conspiracists in regards to this event would be something along the lines of: Why would the government cover-up a shoot-down of Flight 93? What purpose would it serve?

The attempt to answer this question and still keep it some kind of a conspiracy theory often falls apart. For example, the answer of claiming that the appearance of a take over by the passengers is some kind a patriotic ruse still contradicts a conspiracy theory. Real passengers? Real hijackers? The government not taking responsibility for saving us all?

Likewise an answer to the question above which seeks to resolve the contradiction by avoiding anything but the government taking responsibility for a quick response in a troubling ethical situation contradicts the claim of a Big Evil Government in the first place: Big Evil Government could care less about the murder of 3,000 innocent victims, but has trouble justifying a shoot down order? Consistency is a problem that infects most conspiracy theories, but one that most conspiracists do not regard as important. For the reasons that have already been outlined, a contradiction inherent in a theory should be the first cause of concern.