The Supposed 9/11 Conspiracy

The Conspiracy of 9/11

According to the official version of the U.S. government, Islamic fundamentalists are responsible for terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. They were guided and supported by the terrorist organization Al- Qaeda of Osama bin Laden. Other versions provided, evidence to support that these attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government itself. And they are gaining ground. The "skeptics" who are wary of the version government have called into question many aspects. Thierry Meyssan, a French writer, was one of those who had early success with undeniable. His book The Big Lie A has sold over 200,000 copies in France only, and have been translated into 28 languages (Roeper, p. 224).

For many years, many other books and sites Web offer other interpretations surprising the attacks of September 11 with a success increasing the public. Surveys reveal that 40% of Americans believe in any U.S. government involvement in these terrorist events. This figure would be about 20% in Canada, 25% in Europe and more 50% in Latin America in the Arab world and Russia.

The attack on the Pentagon According to Meyssan, it would not be a plane that would hit the Pentagon, but probably a missile. He brings as evidence that the hole visible in the wall of the Pentagon is only five meters in diameter, while the fuselage of a Boeing is more than twelve feet in diameter - plus wings with a wingspan of nearly 40 meters. In addition, could not find any piece of debris in the air inside the Pentagon. He admits that it is an aircraft part you see on the pitch (one of first published photos), but no evidence it comes from the alleged theft, he said.

Selection of Facts

The conspiracy of September 11 is extreme examples of mistaken reasoning very common: consider only the facts that support we wish to prove the thesis. They see only the holes 5 meters in the wall of the Pentagon and conclude the impact of a missile since a plane with a wingspan 40 meters should have a whole lot more great, yet it is hidden by the collapse of the facade. They cite journalists that, shortly after impact, reported not having seen aircraft parts to the crash site and ignore aircraft parts and the remains of bodies found in the following days, not counting the hundreds of Eyewitnesses of the crash.

Satisfied with the apparent anomalies and contradictions reported in the first reports, they ignore the facts reported later on the grounds that they come from government analyzes suspicious since it is the U.S. government, according them, is responsible for the attacks. Rather than to examine the new evidence, they will focus more on speculation or least likely of those who have reasons to conduct these attacks. They therefore hold that a restrictive interpretation of certain facts in the direction of their thesis that they do could not do if they took into account all other relevant facts. Moreover, they neglect ...