November 23, 2002
What is Crazy?
I also received a comment on a mention of the theory that the planes used to hit the World Trade Center were remote controlled. According to the message, the idea is so ludicrous it detracts from the credibility of the site.I thought about this for a while.
I'm not sure to what the writer was referring, but about the issue in general I would say this:
I don't believe I have stated that the remote control scenario is in fact what happened on September 11, 2001. I'm not sure if I have seen anyone put it forth as a fact. I have seen it put forth as a possibility based on the fact that such remote piloting technology for commercial aircraft does exist. Whoever did arrange the catastrophe was certainly highly sophisticated.
I find it extremely disturbing if not incriminating that the White House has exerted so much energy and power on trying to block investigations into the incident, which would seem to me to be just an automatic response for people of good faith. Since so much evidence was destroyed and suppressed, and the White House has succeeded in blocking investigation, we are left with our speculations, fueled by the fear and horror engendered by the attack.
I try to observe basic rules of logic, scientific method and rules of evidence in evaluating ideas that are presented through this site. To me sufficient evidence has been introduced to establish the remote piloting scenario as a possibility. I haven't seen evidence that would destroy it as a possibility. So it remains a theory, unproven but possible.
The piloting itself is only one element of the event. Within the possibility of remote piloting, there is a broad range of possibilities regarding who did it, who was behind it, who knew about it and so forth. Since little has been solidly established in a reliable public forum, the range of possibilities remains wide open.
I reject efforts to negate the possibility -- or any possibility -- based on arguments like, "that is ludicrous," or "no one (or no president) would do such a thing."
David Corn of "The Nation" turned in fury upon anyone who suggested the possibility that "the government" (which I presume means anyone in the government because there is no logical way to interpret the word in that sentence as meaning the entire government) knew about the attacks in advance. He said, "I expressed doubt that the Bush Administration would kill or allow the murder of thousands of American citizens to achieve a political or economic aim."
Although I may be comforted if I could, I'm afraid I can't share Corn's faith. I would like to believe in the goodness of powerful politicians, but there is no logical basis for it that I can see. I can hope, but I can't believe.
I don't think it is logical, or even safe, to limit future possibilities to what has happened in the past. What is "far out," or "ludicrous," or "unbelievable" has become the actual. I would never have believed that the Republicans on the Supreme Court would stop an election and call it in a partisan way that blatantly contradicted their own beliefs as established throughout their careers. But it happened. And many many other things I would never have thought possible have happened. It's not a time to keep blinders on. There will be no comfort in believing bad things can't happen when they do.
So that remains my position for now. I remain agnostic about what actually happened on September 11. That means I don't accept conventional, official views and I don't accept other theories as facts. They are all alternate possibilities to me.
-- By David Cogswell