|
Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event
in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form
of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse
scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail
their findings as the only possible conclusion."Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best
ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened
when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories embody a set of previously held or quickly
assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously,
even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.
Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine
a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under
the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts
alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."
Scientific American,Popular Mechanics, and The Skeptic's Dictionaryhave published articles that rebut various 9/11 conspiracy
theories. Proponents of these theories have attacked the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by senior researcher
Ben Chertoff, who they say is cousin of Michael Chertoff — current head of Homeland Security.However, U.S News says
no indication of an actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.Popular Mechanics has published
a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths that expands upon the research first presented in the article.Der Spiegel dismissed 9/11
conspiracy theories as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share
a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."David Ray Griffin has published a book entitled Debunking
9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory,and Jim Hoffman has written
an article called 'popular mechanics assault on 9/11 truth." where he attacks the methods Popular Mechanics uses in forming
their arguments.
Historian Kenneth J. Dillon argues that 9/11 conspiracy theories represent an overly easy target for skeptics and that their
criticisms obfuscate the underlying issue of what actually happened if there wasn't a conspiracy. He suggests that the answer
is criminal negligence on the part of the president and vice president, who were repeatedly warned, followed by a cover-up
conspiracy after 9/11.
In 2006, South Park aired an episode entitled "The Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" which satirized contemporary events surrounding
the resolution of the 9/11 attacks, including conspiracy theories and the Bush Administration — especially parodying
the "the ridiculous nature of [conspiracy theories]", the willingness of the American people to believe anything, and opportunism
of government officials in this respect.
|
