Daniel Splittgerber (.com)

Hi, this is my personal page. I'm currently a lawyer-in-training and a Ph.D. & EMBA student, and an aspiring entrepreneur and investor. I read a lot.

Irrational beliefs

When you think something is the right thing to do, or the right thing to argue and stand up for, you sometimes join an organization or participate in some joint effort to further a cause. One of these causes for me is Libertarianism.

I strongly believe the world would be a much better place if people had a lot more liberties.

People who join you in an effort to further such a cause hopefully share your beliefs.

They may as well have other beliefs, which you adamently oppose but nonetheless see associated with the organization whose basic cause you would like to see furthered.

It’s been very upsetting for me to see a fellow Libertarian (?) – someone I neither know personally nor have met before – advocating various claims by 9/11 conspiracy theorists or 9/11 critics in a magazine article.

The reason this has been upsetting for me is that I strive to think as rationally and follow the scientific method and think logically as much as I can. Coincidentally, I have read up on the issue of 9/11 conspiracy theories over christmas, well before I read about the article. I have found the conspiracy theories – after much rational deliberation and considering the facts proven by the scientific method – to be totally wanting.

After careful consideration, there exist, in my view, no facts indicating any kind of conspiracy whatsoever and there are no rational arguments to be made for those conspiracies – and thereby against the facts which the public knows about 9/11 – which hold up under rational scrutiny and under adherence to the scientific method. There are no “facts” or arguments that can form a rational case for scepticism concerning 9/11.

I believe humans often think irrationally – sometimes understandably so, sometimes not. And they do seem to fall for conspiracy theories every so often.

But what I will never understand is why an author who supposedly spent “thousands of hours” on a subject still holds irrational beliefs contrary to all kinds of evidence.

I also believe that everyone has the right to hold his own views and express them. So Oliver Janich is absolutely free to state his own opinion, of course.

As am I. These are the major reasons I believe the conspiracy theories and purported “facts” about 9/11 (as stated in the Focus Money article “Terroranschläge vom 11. September 2001: Wir glauben euch nicht!“) are utterly irrational, to say the least:

1. The most basic premise the conspiracy theorists fail to understand is that the burden of proof is on them. They are the ones who try to dispute the facts and try to make one believe in a different explanation for the events, so they must prove that current wisdom is incorrect. Even if you buy into their “it’s a conspiracy, so how can you prove anything without being a conspirator” argument, they could still start with any minor detail that proves the facts and the official explanation for 9/11 to be wrong and work it from there. People cannot just make stuff up and expect other people to believe their premises and dispute their ridiculous claims. It’s the other way round – start disputing the facts.

2. Conspiracy theorists often play on people’s worries about governments playing tricks on them and other emotions. Playing on one’s emotions is a clever tactic, but doesn’t make their points any more believable, if considered rationally.

3. Conspiracy theorists assert that it is ‘impossible’ to hit the Pentagon with a Boeing in such a maneuvre. A Dutch TV show took a similarly inexperienced pilot and put him in a simulator and he accomplished it three times in a row. It may be difficult, but not as difficult as the conspiracy theorists assert.

They also assert that a missile hit the Pentagon, as aircraft debris is supposedly missing. The debris is not missing, it’s here and here and here. Passenger’s DNA was found all over those parts of the Pentagon, which were hit. Lamp poles were struck down by the plane as it approached the Pentagon.

And to the supposedly “many many security cameras” watching the Pentagon: please show on any satellite image where there should have been a camera whose footage has not been released yet! There is none. Conspiracy theorists all over the world tried and couldn’t find one. The only one showing the impact actually shows a plane – though the resolution is not good.

4. Flight 93 – Why was Flight 93 not intercepted? Because NORAD had no specific targets to go after, and was waiting on the FAA to name them, not being able to do so themselves. Shut-down order or not, no fighter planes were even close. Add to that the fact that communication between NORAD and the FAA was by no means easy or as fast as today, and the “mystery” of why Flight 93 was not intercepted unravels. And by the way, they didn’t have “about an hour” to intercept planes, as the author states in his article. It was – at the most – nine minutes, which NORAD had to possibly intercept Flight 11, which then crashed into the WTC.

Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that Flight 93 was shot down. Flight-data-recorder for Flight 93 indicates nothing whatsoever that the flight could have been shot down by a missile. Faking FDR data is not only immensely difficult but has not been proven to have happened in this case, despite many a conspiracy theorist looking into it.

Also, there is no “missing debris” – what do you think this and this is?

5. I am fairly fed up by baseless accusations by now and will stop here. Read all about WTC 1 and 2 and 7 on the links given. All accusations by conspiracy theorists have been disproven. One just has to actually go read about it instead of staying in a state of disbelief.

I didn’t think I would have to ever write about something as obvious as this – and I feel sorry that I have to -, but apparently some people hold some really irrationally beliefs about 9/11. Do not count me amongst them.


  • So what is the official explanation for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2?

    Turning now to the Pentagon attack. Some in the 9/11 Truth Movement believe that a 757 did hit the Pentagon and others do not. However, we all agree that a plane shouldn't have been allowed to get any where near the Pentagon with out being intercepted or at best a warning being issued.

    Why didn't the tail of the plane damage the Pentagon's facade? This problem is clearly mentioned in the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR). It states,

    "The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

    What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon?

    These are question brought up by the PBPR but are left unanswered. To support the official story you have to provide evidence that Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon not some other plane. So far, years later, no evidence has been forthcoming.
  • The official explanation can be found on any of the sites I linked to above,
    feel free to check them out.

    Have you ever seen what actually happens to a plane when it hits a wall?
    Watch this video for yourself:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
    Now consider again what might have happened to the 757 upon impact.

    And I already linked to an image showing where exactly the DNA of the
    passengers of Flight 77 was found on the grounds of the Pentagon.

    Also, have you realized that Ronald Reagan National Airport is situated only
    a few hundred meters away from the Pentagon, with a landing strip pointing
    directly to the direction of the Pentagon? There are literally hundreds of
    airplanes that are "allowed to get any where near the Pentagon" every day.

    Please stop asking questions anyone can debunk in two minutes time.
  • Your cursory reading into the available literature surrounding the 9/11 attacks is not sufficient for you to make such bold proclamations or pretend that you or others have "debunked" all the arguments and evidence of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    Daniel: "The most basic premise the conspiracy theorists fail to understand is that the burden of proof is on them."

    Why is the burden on the 9/11 Truth Movement? Are you saying that the government is under no obligation to provide any positive evidence in support of their conspiracy theory? During the run-up to the Iraq War, was the burden on the government to prove that Iraq was producing and stockpiling WMD, or was the burden on the dissenters, like Scott Ritter, to prove that they weren't?

    Daniel: "Playing on one’s emotions is a clever tactic..." It is our government that does this. Remember the "mushroom clouds over Americans cities" argument for why we needed to attack Iraq?

    Daniel: "Why was Flight 93 not intercepted? Because NORAD had no specific targets to go after, and was waiting on the FAA to name them."

    "[W]e watched the [Flight] 93 track as it meandered around the Ohio-Pennsylvania area and started to turn south toward DC."
    Larry Arnold, Commander of the Continental US NORAD Region, "Air War Over America"

    A little learning is a dangerous thing.
  • It's interesting, the way you counter my arguments. You don't bring forth
    specific evidence (e.g. photos contradicting any evidence I gave), but
    instead you state generalities, change the topic ever so slightly and
    otherwise provide no helpful facts.

    The government brought forth - though not always in the most forthcoming way
    - the facts. So anyone is free to analyze these facts and draw his own
    conclusions. In my view, these facts absolutely fit what we know or, as you
    would like to call it, the government's "conspiracy theory". If you disagree
    you have to specify why and what evidence supports your claim - that's the
    basis for rational discourse. That's all I have to say on this matter.
blog comments powered by Disqus