First, from a purely pragmatic point of view, the 9/11 account I have outlined above is far superior to any of the more complex theories, because it supports every practical consequence that we want, and it has the added advantages of being based on easily verified facts and being easy to explain.
For Johnson, truth is secondary, if relevant at all. His “account” is “far superior” not because of any truth value, but because it “it supports every practical consequence that we want,” an instrumental approach to truth. In other words, a lie is superior to the truth if it gives you the practical consequences you want. His claim his narrative is “based on easily verified facts” is begging the question.
Second, from a rational point of view, most of the conspiracy theories violate basic principles like Occam’s Razor, namely that the simplest explanation of a given fact is to be preferred. Generally people lead with their strongest arguments, but nothing I have seen makes me want to inquire more deeply. It is laughable, for instance, that people who claim that no planes hit the Pentagon or crashed in Pennsylvania don’t feel a need to explain what really did happen to the airplanes. And as for the claims that the twin towers were brought down by explosives, well doesn’t that seem like overkill? Sure, it looks spectacular on TV. But crashing jetliners into the buildings would have been sufficient to achieve any of the posited motives, from starting a war to totaling the buildings for insurance purposes.
This is a typical misuse of Occam’s Razor, which says to not multiply entities more than necessary. The key is, “necessary.” So, a simple story that is false does not, in fact, satisfy Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor does not mean to prefer a simple lie to a complicated truth, as Johnson would have you believe.
Secondly, Johnson argues from ignorance: “nothing I have seen makes me want to inquire more deeply.” This is a constant refrain from 9/11 liars. The NIST report on World Trade Center building 7 said they found no evidence for the use of explosives. When asked, did you look for any evidence for the use of explosives, a spokesman responded they did not. Johnson does much the same here. He admits he got all of his information from watching television that day, references some of the most unlikely “conspiracy theories” and like a Snopes “fact checker” simply dismisses the weakest narratives.
As is typical for Johnson, he constantly violates the Principle of Charity, which “requires interpreting a speaker’s statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.” Instead, Johnson finds the weakest idea to argue against, finds the weak idea wanting, then refuses to even consider any evidence.
Then he merely begs the question: “But crashing jetliners into the buildings would have been sufficient to achieve any of the posited motives, from starting a war to totaling the buildings for insurance purposes.” That is precisely the question at hand. That is also a physical question, could a jetliner cause the totaling of the buildings? The basic physics says no. Not even the official story says the jetliners totaled the building. Johnson doesn’t even know what the “official story” is.
Again, Johnson simply doesn’t care about the truth, he won’t look at any evidence, and simply engages in fallacious rhetoric.
Third, because 9/11 right on its surface is so damaging to Jewish power, and because the official American story (they attacked us because they hate our freedoms) is so absurd, and two out of three Americans knew it, I believe that the enemy felt the need to create a disinformation campaign that would taint even the most cautious and rational critiques of the “official story” with the stench of lunacy. Because the net effect of all the excited talk about disappearing airplanes, controlled demolitions, and false flags manufactured at the highest levels of the US government is that even reasonable alternatives to the official story are dismissed as just more internet conspiracy crankery. Well, maybe that’s what we are supposed to think. Maybe the 9/11 “truth” movement is the real “false flag.”
Here Johnson’s disingenuousness really shines though. He creates his own conspiracy theory, that the Jews invented a “disinformation campaign.” Which is, in fact, true, and Johnson assists by misrepresenting the mainstream 9/11 Truth movement, centered around Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, with various low quality, evidence free “conspiracy theories.”
Also, to suggest that the “official story” of 9/11 is “damaging to Jewish power” is an astonishing reversal of reality. The Iraq war, done at the behest of Israel, could have never happened without 9/11. The entire “Clash of Civilization” narrative and the “counter-jihad” movement did the exact opposite of “damage” Jewish power, it enhanced Jewish power. Israel’s goals of the destruction of Syria and Libya even a decade later could have never been realized without 9/11.
Johnson has engaged in this sort of disingenuous rhetoric on 9/11, and many other subjects, for well over a decade now. The dishonesty and bad faith is astonishing when you look at the totality of his output over the years, on this and many other subjects. The instrumental approach to truth, the question begging, the strawmanning, and the refusal to ever actually confront strong evidence – all of it, put together, over such a long period of time, really makes Johnson one of the best examples of the Disingenuous Right.
Indeed, every year Johnson repeats these same fallacies and lies: